Cummings and goings

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun May 24, 2020 4:27 pm

Do you think the press are baying for blood or should Dominic Cummings resign ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Ian Volante » Sun May 24, 2020 7:53 pm

I don't think these two things are exclusive.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Paul Worsley » Mon May 25, 2020 12:46 pm

He's not a publicly elected figure, so there is no reason for him to resign.

The question is, should he be sacked?

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon May 25, 2020 1:33 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 12:46 pm
He's not a publicly elected figure, so there is no reason for him to resign.

The question is, should he be sacked?
The time to sack him has now passed , around 5 past 5 yesterday evening
Hopefully he will be resigning in the next hour
To spend more time with his family
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon May 25, 2020 1:55 pm

The thing is he's technically, as I understand it, not broken the rules given there are exemptions for childcare. The thing is that is it in the spirit of the rules? Probably not. And what's more, there will almost certainly have to be an inquiry into the entire COVID pandemic when it's all over, but that inquiry really should push further - the press refusing to socially distance and crowding around Dominic Cummings was hypocrisy at best and dangerous at worst. The time to resign has passed, though. Now he needs to tough it out.

I also have to say Channel 4 have a lot to answer for. Cummings was not a household name until that Cumberbatch "uncivil war" drama, and now everyone thinks they know Dominic Cummings' inner thigh measurements, based on a dramatised portrayal.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon May 25, 2020 2:42 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 1:55 pm
The thing is he's technically, as I understand it, not broken the rules given there are exemptions for childcare. The thing is that is it in the spirit of the rules? Probably not. And what's more, there will almost certainly have to be an inquiry into the entire COVID pandemic when it's all over, but that inquiry really should push further - the press refusing to socially distance and crowding around Dominic Cummings was hypocrisy at best and dangerous at worst. The time to resign has passed, though. Now he needs to tough it out.

I also have to say Channel 4 have a lot to answer for. Cummings was not a household name until that Cumberbatch "uncivil war" drama, and now everyone thinks they know Dominic Cummings' inner thigh measurements, based on a dramatised portrayal.
I would have been far more sympathetic to Mr Cummings predicament if he and his wife had no over relatives to call upon in the local area like his brother for example
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Paul Worsley » Mon May 25, 2020 3:35 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 2:42 pm
I would have been far more sympathetic to Mr Cummings predicament if he and his wife had no over relatives to call upon in the local area like his brother for example
Really? I would suggest that for the vast majority of parents unable to look after their young children, the obvious choice would be the children's grandparents.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon May 25, 2020 4:08 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 3:35 pm
Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 2:42 pm
I would have been far more sympathetic to Mr Cummings predicament if he and his wife had no over relatives to call upon in the local area like his brother for example
Really? I would suggest that for the vast majority of parents unable to look after their young children, the obvious choice would be the children's grandparents.
If people over seventy are the most vulnerable , then I would say no.
I'm guessing he would very easily afford professional childcare
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Mark James » Mon May 25, 2020 4:21 pm

WTF does it mean the time has passed to do anything? The best time might have been earlier but the next best time is now. He should resign now and if he doesn't, sack him now. Why is that difficult?

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Paul Worsley » Mon May 25, 2020 4:22 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 4:08 pm
If people over seventy are the most vulnerable , then I would say no.
I'm guessing he would very easily afford professional childcare
24 hour childcare? Is there such a thing?

I can understand why you are annoyed that he broke lockdown rules, but he and his wife are in the best position to know who to leave their children with.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon May 25, 2020 4:43 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 4:22 pm
Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 4:08 pm
If people over seventy are the most vulnerable , then I would say no.
I'm guessing he would very easily afford professional childcare
24 hour childcare? Is there such a thing?

I can understand why you are annoyed that he broke lockdown rules, but he and his wife are in the best position to know who to leave their children with.
What like a live in nanny.
C'mon some of the shit he has been spouting like he thought he would test the poor condition of his eyesight by driving to Barnard Castle a 90 minute round trip with his wife and child ( coincidentally on her 45th birthday ) is preposterous and negates this rationale that parents are the best people to judge what is right in regards to childcare.
Not one apology.
As we used to say in the playground in the seventies.
Chinny reckon 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Last edited by Marc Meakin on Mon May 25, 2020 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon May 25, 2020 4:49 pm

Well that was quite an interesting press conference. For someone who doesn't really do speaking in public, I think he came across exactly how he wanted to come across, made all of his points clearly, and had the most appropriate answer from his armoury to hand for every question.

As for stuff like honesty - who knows the exact story?

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon May 25, 2020 4:53 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 4:49 pm
Well that was quite an interesting press conference. For someone who doesn't really do speaking in public, I think he came across exactly how he wanted to come across, made all of his points clearly, and had the most appropriate answer from his armoury to hand for every question.

As for stuff like honesty - who knows the exact story?
Without the trip to Barnard Castle I think I would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon May 25, 2020 4:56 pm

- The police have admitted their initial statement was false.
- He didn't visit his parents.
- He didn't breach the 14 day isolation period.
- He didn't make multiple trips to Durham.

He probably should have gone at some point because he could easily have been brought back before the next election, but the time now is too late.

So basically, the media haven't come out of that statement well. I believe him about the testing-eyesight thing but it's just stupid on his part.

(Edited to correct spelling error)
Last edited by Rhys Benjamin on Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon May 25, 2020 5:09 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 4:53 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 4:49 pm
Well that was quite an interesting press conference. For someone who doesn't really do speaking in public, I think he came across exactly how he wanted to come across, made all of his points clearly, and had the most appropriate answer from his armoury to hand for every question.

As for stuff like honesty - who knows the exact story?
Without the trip to Barnard Castle I think I would have given him the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, he went for a drive to check his eyesight and just happened to end up there.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon May 25, 2020 5:15 pm

Also, his son didn't need to stop for a pee on the long drive up there (though did on a much shorter journey during the visit), and he doesn't know if he stopped for petrol on the way back. Wouldn't he have a receipt, or a bank statement showing the money going out? Or was he just unprepared for any questions about his journey back not thinking it would come up?

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon May 25, 2020 5:35 pm

Things we have learned from Dominic Cummings press conference.
1. His wife doesn't drive.
2. His home has been under siege (why go back there then? )
3. His parents has no WiFi facilities ( or else he should have stayed in safer isolation )
4. He broke the speed limit driving to Barnard Castle with non perfect eyesight ( it's 43 minutes on Google maps )
5. He regrets nothing
6. He was sorry for being late however.
7. The gardens looked nice
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Callum Todd » Tue May 26, 2020 5:39 am

Whatever you make of the guy's actions (you could have the strongest opinions either way) the persistent obsession with this story is so depressing.

It's been the first item on every news bulletin I've heard for two days. That's an eternity in modern news. In this time, the government has announced plans to reopen all retail shops in England, and Ireland has declared no new CoVid deaths for the first time. But none of that is as important as reiterating for the 48th time that one family made a long trip.

It's been terribly disheartening to me that this era of politicising everything hasn't taken a hit from this pandemic, which should be putting petty political concerns into perspective, but rather just seemed to be intensified. I find it enormously distasteful to use a global health and livelihood crisis as a springboard for narrow partisan politics.

The ongoing obsession with a piece of gossip around a political figure's personal behaviour is the most depressing exhibit of that yet.

None of this is a defense of Dominic Cumming's behaviour, which I don't give a toss about.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue May 26, 2020 7:35 am

Well said, Callum.

That said, lynch him. (I'm joking.)

User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4306
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Jon O'Neill » Tue May 26, 2020 8:16 am

If you really can't see why people would be so galled by this then you must be severely lacking in imagination. It sounds like you have no appreciation for the sacrifices some people are making to maintain social distancing. I don't count myself in that number but I know of people who are in childcare/work hell that are fastidiously upholding the rules when there might be other options available that don't conform to the letter or spirit of the guidance.

So when you're putting your life on hold and the very people imposing those restrictions are just taking the piss, in a clear indication that they don't feel the rules apply to them, this will almost feel like a pretty personal affront.

Add to this that they have clearly lied their tits off the whole way through, and the best version of the conceit is one where you admit to going out for a drive to test your eyesight, and it's a pretty juicy story that has caused a lot of deserved attention. If we let them get away with this you start to slip towards a Trumpian nightmare where you can get away with lying through your teeth at every opportunity and there will be an army of bootlickers willing to wave it through and label any reaction as partisanship.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue May 26, 2020 8:41 am

Well said, Jono.

Lynch him.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue May 26, 2020 8:43 am

(But I do agree that other news should get a look in. Generally the news is like this with any big story about anything though. Just repeating the same stuff over and over doesn't give us more information and comes at the cost of other stories.)

Plus people who voted in the Johnson/Cummings machine have got what they voted for anyway.

Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Elliott Mellor » Tue May 26, 2020 10:09 am

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 5:35 pm
Things we have learned from Dominic Cummings press conference.
1. His wife doesn't drive.
2. His home has been under siege (why go back there then? )
3. His parents has no WiFi facilities ( or else he should have stayed in safer isolation )
4. He broke the speed limit driving to Barnard Castle with non perfect eyesight ( it's 43 minutes on Google maps )
5. He regrets nothing
6. He was sorry for being late however.
7. The gardens looked nice
His wife can drive.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue May 26, 2020 10:29 am

Elliott Mellor wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 10:09 am
Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 5:35 pm
Things we have learned from Dominic Cummings press conference.
1. His wife doesn't drive.
2. His home has been under siege (why go back there then? )
3. His parents has no WiFi facilities ( or else he should have stayed in safer isolation )
4. He broke the speed limit driving to Barnard Castle with non perfect eyesight ( it's 43 minutes on Google maps )
5. He regrets nothing
6. He was sorry for being late however.
7. The gardens looked nice
His wife can drive.
Yeah , I should change that to ' His wife was 45 coincidentally , on the day they went to Barnard Castle '
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Elliott Mellor » Tue May 26, 2020 10:30 am

Marc Meakin wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 10:29 am
Elliott Mellor wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 10:09 am
Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 5:35 pm
Things we have learned from Dominic Cummings press conference.
1. His wife doesn't drive.
2. His home has been under siege (why go back there then? )
3. His parents has no WiFi facilities ( or else he should have stayed in safer isolation )
4. He broke the speed limit driving to Barnard Castle with non perfect eyesight ( it's 43 minutes on Google maps )
5. He regrets nothing
6. He was sorry for being late however.
7. The gardens looked nice
His wife can drive.
Yeah , I should change that to ' His wife was 45 coincidentally , on the day they went to Barnard Castle '
Yes, a very handy coincidence indeed :)

Of course, I'm sure the two couldn't be connected in any way...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue May 26, 2020 10:54 am

The press didn't ask the right questions it seems.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue May 26, 2020 10:56 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 10:54 am
The press didn't ask the right questions it seems.
Apparently even Prince Andrew thought his story lacked credibility
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Tue May 26, 2020 12:56 pm

Callum Todd wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:39 am
Whatever you make of the guy's actions (you could have the strongest opinions either way) the persistent obsession with this story is so depressing.

It's been the first item on every news bulletin I've heard for two days. That's an eternity in modern news. In this time, the government has announced plans to reopen all retail shops in England, and Ireland has declared no new CoVid deaths for the first time. But none of that is as important as reiterating for the 48th time that one family made a long trip.

It's been terribly disheartening to me that this era of politicising everything hasn't taken a hit from this pandemic, which should be putting petty political concerns into perspective, but rather just seemed to be intensified. I find it enormously distasteful to use a global health and livelihood crisis as a springboard for narrow partisan politics.

The ongoing obsession with a piece of gossip around a political figure's personal behaviour is the most depressing exhibit of that yet.

None of this is a defense of Dominic Cumming's behaviour, which I don't give a toss about.
Your insistence that this is a partisan issue seems misguided from what I've seen over the past few days: people who would usually support/defend the government, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt, are livid for the reasons Jono mentioned. The only people I have seen defending or dismissing this are hyper partisans; I'd actually say it's one of the *least* partisan stories to garner so much attention and fury in recent years.

Savanta ComRes released polling today showing that support for the government has dropped 16% in *one day* and support for the Prime Minister has dropped 20% in the last four days. These figures are astonishing: clearly this is reverberating well beyond the usual echo chambers, so to bemoan its persistence in the media is back to front - it's the top story and garnering so much airtime because the public is highly engaged with the story and wants to know more!

'Government risks undermining public health messaging during pandemic to save man's job' is a much, much bigger story than 'Non-essential shops will open in mid-June'. Government health advice has been messy at times, but the clearest bits have been:
  • If a person in your household has symptoms, the entire household should self-isolate for 14 days.
  • You cannot visit friends and family in their homes.
These rules have caused a lot of suffering for some people - especially parents struggling with childcare, single parents in particular - but the vast majority of people have abided by them anyway, even if it's devastated their mental health. Now they will ask why they bothered, when Cummings' entirely unexceptional circumstances (with more local support options than are open to most!) have been accepted and waved through by the most senior figures in government. 14,000 fines have been handed out nationally for breaking lockdown; almost certainly there are cases much more difficult than Cummings' where those fined have not been offered a televised platform in the Rose Garden on which to defend themselves.

Several police figureheads have already stated that the government's defence of Cummings makes it much harder for them to police lockdown (and I checked; these are mostly independent figures rather than party political ones), and that is concerning! If lockdown falls apart, those daily death tolls are going to start rising again. I think it's quite naive to act like he is in a vacuum, or that this is a silly bit of gossip - this sets precedent, and that precedent may prove to be deadly when replicated.

(Speaking of precedent, there's also this, which seems to have disturbed the legal community; only time will tell if it's the start of things to come or a misjudged anomaly.)
"There's leaders, and there's followers, but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower" - Aristotle

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Callum Todd » Tue May 26, 2020 5:10 pm

Jono - I can understand why people are galled by it. I just don't agree with that reaction. I do appreciate what people are going through. I just don't think that a fixation of the witchhunt of one nobhead who's broken some rules will help them. It shouldn't feel like a personal affront, because it's not personal. I'm not defending his actions or lies. He was involved in the implementation of these rules in a very superficial way. The measures we've seen are nearly all centuries if not millennia old. He just helped with the release of the information regarding the modern repackaging of these ideas, just as every country in the world did. All he had anything meaningful to do with at all were the specifics of the rules (which technically he hasn't broken). His behaviour was also undertaken in a personal capacity not professional. So his job (as an employee, not a publicly elected official) is irrelevant. I really don't like going after people in mobs to get them to lose their jobs. Yes his actions produce a bad look, which is quite unfortunate given the nature of his job, but is it the most important thing that's happened in the world in the past 3 days, so much so that it should overshadow all other news? Absolutely not.

Jen - sorry; my communication was quite poor.

The third paragraph of my initial post (describing my dismay at the politicisation of everything) was meant as just a related point. I have seen much of the talk around the specific topic of Cummings's actions fall into this category, but they're far from the sole example. That category is infinitely bigger than this (small - to me) story. I maintain the shameless use of this terrible crisis to further political partisanship is absolutely reprehensible, and is going on in a big way on many fronts, but my initial post doesn't do much to make clear that this was meant to be a much, much wider point and not a reaction specific to this story. I certainly didn't mean to "insist" that this was partisanship, but I can see how what I wrote could give that impression. Oops.
Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 12:56 pm
'Government risks undermining public health messaging during pandemic to save man's job' is a much, much bigger story than 'Non-essential shops will open in mid-June'.
I think you're underplaying the significance of so many shops being able to reopen. The impact on economy and livelihood with so many people being able to return to work is likely to be massive, even just initially.

Personally I would take (very small) issue with your phrasing of the first headline too, which I think goes beyond just a representation of the facts of the matter. I would also take (slightly less small) issue with the phrasing you and Jono (and others!) have used in your description of Cummings's actions, which I think betrays your opinion on the matter rather than just reporting the facts. But I shan't go in to that because as I've said, I couldn't give a toss about the specifics of his behaviour and I'm certainly not out to defend it.

This wasn't intended as a moan about the media (although I am very frustrated with having to change the radio station constantly when the news bulletins do my tits in) but a moan at the attention that is being paid to this topic by media and public alike. So if it's true that the media is merely reflecting public interest then I still have beef with the public for being so interested in this nonsense when there's much more important things going on, but I would say that at the very, very least you can't say that media coverage is a pure reflection of organic public interest, as the media plays a huge role in directing public interest. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing, although obviously not entirely so. If there had been less media coverage of this 'story' then there would be less public interest.

Ultimately, the guy's actions were the irresponsible but legal behaviour of a private individual. Perhaps it's reasonable that a private individual who also sometimes operates in a public role is subject to more scrutiny of their private behaviour than most others. But what's the absolute cap on a reasonable level of public interest and media coverage in any private individual's actions? For me, it's some small percentage of what it is currently being seen.

I witness several far worse lockdown breaches (and far worse behaviour generally) than this story every day. For it to completely consume the news cycle for coming up to three days at one of the most newsworthy times in modern history is absolutely baffling. Plus the witchhunt side of things, and the partisanship of which a small part is being latched onto this, is very unsavoury.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue May 26, 2020 5:21 pm

I can't be bothered with a long diatribe.
Hypocrisy , pretty much sums up my feelings.
The ' Don't do as I do do as I say ' attitude always gets people's backs up , it's human nature.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue May 26, 2020 5:44 pm

Callum Todd wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:10 pm
Ultimately, the guy's actions were the irresponsible but legal behaviour of a private individual. Perhaps it's reasonable that a private individual who also sometimes operates in a public role is subject to more scrutiny of their private behaviour than most others. But what's the absolute cap on a reasonable level of public interest and media coverage in any private individual's actions? For me, it's some small percentage of what it is currently being seen.

I witness several far worse lockdown breaches (and far worse behaviour generally) than this story every day. For it to completely consume the news cycle for coming up to three days at one of the most newsworthy times in modern history is absolutely baffling. Plus the witchhunt side of things, and the partisanship of which a small part is being latched onto this, is very unsavoury.
I'm not buying this gaslightery that he's completely innocent and did nothing wrong. Even if you take his whole account at face value, at best he bent the rules and acted outside their spirit, and at worst he outright broke them.

Imagine it's mid-April, before the lockdown rules were relaxed to allow driving elsewhere to exercise. A car gets pulled over by the police. It contains a man, a woman and a child.

"Where do you live, sir?"
"Durham."
"And where are you going?"
"Barnard Castle."
"Is there a good reason for you to be driving that distance?"
"Yes, I've just recovered from the virus, and I intend to return to London where I actually live, but before I do so I just want to check that I'm fit to drive. That's why I'm driving my family to somewhere 30 miles away, officer."

If this were any ordinary member of the public, can you honestly imagine the next sentence being "very well sir, on your way"? This would end up being one of those "driver gives ridiculous excuse for breaking lockdown" stories like the bloke who said he was driving from Nottingham to London because the bread was cheaper there.

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Callum Todd » Tue May 26, 2020 6:05 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:44 pm
Callum Todd wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:10 pm
Ultimately, the guy's actions were the irresponsible but legal behaviour of a private individual. Perhaps it's reasonable that a private individual who also sometimes operates in a public role is subject to more scrutiny of their private behaviour than most others. But what's the absolute cap on a reasonable level of public interest and media coverage in any private individual's actions? For me, it's some small percentage of what it is currently being seen.

I witness several far worse lockdown breaches (and far worse behaviour generally) than this story every day. For it to completely consume the news cycle for coming up to three days at one of the most newsworthy times in modern history is absolutely baffling. Plus the witchhunt side of things, and the partisanship of which a small part is being latched onto this, is very unsavoury.
I'm not buying this gaslightery that he's completely innocent and did nothing wrong. Even if you take his whole account at face value, at best he bent the rules and acted outside their spirit, and at worst he outright broke them.

Imagine it's mid-April, before the lockdown rules were relaxed to allow driving elsewhere to exercise. A car gets pulled over by the police. It contains a man, a woman and a child.

"Where do you live, sir?"
"Durham."
"And where are you going?"
"Barnard Castle."
"Is there a good reason for you to be driving that distance?"
"Yes, I've just recovered from the virus, and I intend to return to London where I actually live, but before I do so I just want to check that I'm fit to drive. That's why I'm driving my family to somewhere 30 miles away, officer."

If this were any ordinary member of the public, can you honestly imagine the next sentence being "very well sir, on your way"? This would end up being one of those "driver gives ridiculous excuse for breaking lockdown" stories like the bloke who said he was driving from Nottingham to London because the bread was cheaper there.
I agree with 100% of your post apart from that it began with a quote of me, when as far I can tell no part of your comment bears any relation to any part of my comment. Have I missed a link somewhere?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue May 26, 2020 6:10 pm

Callum Todd wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 6:05 pm
I agree with 100% of your post apart from that it began with a quote of me, when as far I can tell no part of your comment bears any relation to any part of my comment. Have I missed a link somewhere?
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to your description of his actions as "legal". Even Jeremy Hunt accepts they weren't.

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Callum Todd » Tue May 26, 2020 6:15 pm

Ah, thanks. Perhaps you're right, without claiming to have read every single word of the actual legislation around travel, it would appear the Barnard Castle trip (but not the London-Durham and Durham-London) trip was probably illegal. Feel free to substitute "and probably even illegal" for the words "but legal" in my initial post, and I'll still stand by it.

I think your comparison to a "driver gives ridiculous excuse for breaking lockdown" story is spot on. That's exactly what this is. It's just the identity of the driver that's different. Does that warrant a several thousandfold (maybe even millionfold) increase in attention? Definitely not in my opinion.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Mark James » Tue May 26, 2020 6:29 pm

If he had just resigned or been sacked the story would have gone away.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue May 26, 2020 6:39 pm

Callum Todd wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 6:15 pm
Ah, thanks. Perhaps you're right, without claiming to have read every single word of the actual legislation around travel, it would appear the Barnard Castle trip (but not the London-Durham and Durham-London) trip was probably illegal. Feel free to substitute "and probably even illegal" for the words "but legal" in my initial post, and I'll still stand by it.

I think your comparison to a "driver gives ridiculous excuse for breaking lockdown" story is spot on. That's exactly what this is. It's just the identity of the driver that's different. Does that warrant a several thousandfold (maybe even millionfold) increase in attention? Definitely not in my opinion.
Dominic Cummings is the most senior adviser to the cabinet. This isn't some unknown junior aide we're talking about. He would have been heavily involved in deciding on the lockdown rules and how they were communicated to the public, e.g. "you must stay at home", "this is not a request, it is an instruction", and "if you don’t follow the rules, the police will have the powers to enforce them". So it's hardly surprising that when he's found to be flouting the rules himself, it attracts more scrutiny than if a random Joe Bloggs did the same thing. It's like if a football referee were to commit a deliberate foul on a player.

Boris Johnson's apparent attempt to brush the whole thing under the carpet on Sunday just increased the media attention. The public were expecting information and answers. Johnson made some vague handwave about how Cummings was justified in what he did but declined to go into specifics, apparently expecting everyone to be satisfied with that and to stop asking awkward questions. When he was asked directly whether Cummings had travelled to Barnard Castle, he dodged the question.

"Special adviser to government accused of breaking government's own lockdown rules" is a major story. "Prime Minister gives evasive answers and tries to cover up for him" naturally makes the story bigger.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue May 26, 2020 7:19 pm

While I'm enjoying this discussion and the fact that it's bringing a bit of life into c4c, it does make me a little bit sad that the topic that's done this is the same topic everyone all over the country is talking about, and presumably making largely the same points. So in this, I do see Callum's point of view. Sure, discuss this stuff, but not to the exclusion of everything else. It shows a lack of imagination for one thing.

Of course, I still enjoyed this though:
Graeme Cole wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:44 pm
Imagine it's mid-April, before the lockdown rules were relaxed to allow driving elsewhere to exercise. A car gets pulled over by the police. It contains a man, a woman and a child.

"Where do you live, sir?"
"Durham."
"And where are you going?"
"Barnard Castle."
"Is there a good reason for you to be driving that distance?"
"Yes, I've just recovered from the virus, and I intend to return to London where I actually live, but before I do so I just want to check that I'm fit to drive. That's why I'm driving my family to somewhere 30 miles away, officer."

If this were any ordinary member of the public, can you honestly imagine the next sentence being "very well sir, on your way"? This would end up being one of those "driver gives ridiculous excuse for breaking lockdown" stories like the bloke who said he was driving from Nottingham to London because the bread was cheaper there.
And it does annoy me that the press didn't probe Cummings more on the specifics of the Barnard Castle trip E.g.:

Doesn't you wife drive?
Was a 60-mile round trip really the best way to test your eyesight?
Even if we went along with that, you would have been 30 miles away from where you were staying before the test was completed. What if you failed the test at that point? You would have been far better off doing short laps of the surrounding area, never being more than a couple of miles away.
Was it a coincidence that you just happened to end up at Barnard Castle given that it was just a drive to test your sight?
On your wife's birthday as well?

Etc.

Instead they were all like: "But you broke the rules! What about everyone else who has been obeying them?" Obviously he had his set answers for their questions and really they all went away looking like idiots. They never questioned the truth of the account and how realistic it sounded.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Mark James » Tue May 26, 2020 7:34 pm

Can we move on to the whole two days after Cumming's visit to Barnard Castle, GlaxoSmithKline, who are based there, signed an agreement to produce Covid 19 related medications conspiracy theory?

Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Elliott Mellor » Tue May 26, 2020 8:01 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 7:19 pm
While I'm enjoying this discussion and the fact that it's bringing a bit of life into c4c, it does make me a little bit sad that the topic that's done this is the same topic everyone all over the country is talking about, and presumably making largely the same points. So in this, I do see Callum's point of view. Sure, discuss this stuff, but not to the exclusion of everything else. It shows a lack of imagination for one thing.

Of course, I still enjoyed this though:
Graeme Cole wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:44 pm
Imagine it's mid-April, before the lockdown rules were relaxed to allow driving elsewhere to exercise. A car gets pulled over by the police. It contains a man, a woman and a child.

"Where do you live, sir?"
"Durham."
"And where are you going?"
"Barnard Castle."
"Is there a good reason for you to be driving that distance?"
"Yes, I've just recovered from the virus, and I intend to return to London where I actually live, but before I do so I just want to check that I'm fit to drive. That's why I'm driving my family to somewhere 30 miles away, officer."

If this were any ordinary member of the public, can you honestly imagine the next sentence being "very well sir, on your way"? This would end up being one of those "driver gives ridiculous excuse for breaking lockdown" stories like the bloke who said he was driving from Nottingham to London because the bread was cheaper there.
And it does annoy me that the press didn't probe Cummings more on the specifics of the Barnard Castle trip E.g.:

Doesn't you wife drive?
Was a 60-mile round trip really the best way to test your eyesight?
Even if we went along with that, you would have been 30 miles away from where you were staying before the test was completed. What if you failed the test at that point? You would have been far better off doing short laps of the surrounding area, never being more than a couple of miles away.
Was it a coincidence that you just happened to end up at Barnard Castle given that it was just a drive to test your sight?
On your wife's birthday as well?

Etc.

Instead they were all like: "But you broke the rules! What about everyone else who has been obeying them?" Obviously he had his set answers for their questions and really they all went away looking like idiots. They never questioned the truth of the account and how realistic it sounded.
I do agree with this - I watched the entirety of it and was a bit disappointed that they never questioned this. They asked a lot of the same questions and really wasted a golden opportunity.

Matt Rutherford
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham Airport's drone exclusion zone

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Matt Rutherford » Tue May 26, 2020 9:26 pm

Meanwhile, Specsavers are innovating in an era of social distancing. With the branches closed, they are having you do a 30-mile round trip to see if your prescription needs adjusting.
Being from Birmingham and avoiding the accent is quite the odd phenomenon.

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Callum Todd » Wed May 27, 2020 5:27 am

Graeme Cole wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 6:39 pm
Dominic Cummings is the most senior adviser to the cabinet. This isn't some unknown junior aide we're talking about. He would have been heavily involved in deciding on the lockdown rules and how they were communicated to the public, e.g. "you must stay at home", "this is not a request, it is an instruction", and "if you don’t follow the rules, the police will have the powers to enforce them". So it's hardly surprising that when he's found to be flouting the rules himself, it attracts more scrutiny than if a random Joe Bloggs did the same thing. It's like if a football referee were to commit a deliberate foul on a player.
Callum Todd wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:10 pm
He was involved in the implementation of these rules in a very superficial way. The measures we've seen are nearly all centuries if not millennia old. He just helped with the release of the information regarding the modern repackaging of these ideas, just as every country in the world did. All he had anything meaningful to do with at all were the specifics of the rules (which technically he hasn't broken). His behaviour was also undertaken in a personal capacity not professional.
The referee analogy is totally off. Politicians are citizens too, so laws affect them in the same way as everyone else. Referees aren't playing the game so them doing anything at all player-like is immediately a huge diversion from their role. The foul would presumably have to be made while the game is in progress so the referee would be acting in a professional capacity. Cummings wasn't: his (irresponsible/illegal) actions were undertaken as a private citizen. That makes the world of difference.

Also, as I said earlier (and quoted above), Cummings surely had infinitesimal unique input on the lockdown. The UK measures (before partial lifting/when this event took place) are pretty much the same as everywhere else, now and in past pandemics/plagues. Even the spin on them is unoriginal and exactly what you would expect regardless of who's putting them forward. In this, Cummings isn't so much a referee or FIFA official or whoever actually makes the rules, but just one of the guys who helps make the leather (or whatever they use nowadays) that coats footballs. If one them had a game of football in a private capacity and committed a foul, it's not massive sports news.

Also, anyone care to acknowledge the importance of some of the other stories to arise (and quickly be pushed to one side) since we've all been caught up in this Cummings nonsense? I've already given two examples: All shops opening next month. How many people is that able to go back to work, improving their finances, livelihood, and our economy? Ireland, a country close and beloved to most in our country, reporting no new deaths for the first day. That's amazing. Let's give that one a bit of love.

I've been replying to comments thusfar out of sense of duty to defend my argument, but as this whole thing is about how I'm so bored/frustrated/uninspired by the subject story, I'm going to stop talking about it now. If anyone comes up with a truly brilliant bit of logic that really changes my mind or something, I'll reconsider and respond. Otherwise, I think I've made my point clearly and extensively enough. One final clarification (in case it somehow wasn't already clear) that all I've been trying to do is bemoan the massive overinflation of interest in this (to me) dead story and not defend Cummings or his actions, which I do believe were wrong. Have fun.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Acolyte
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Wed May 27, 2020 7:53 am

Tangentially, don't you love it when someone gets into a heated discussion and then says they're going to stop responding to anything anyone says? Because if you continue to try to change their mind, you look stupid for talking to someone who has said they aren't going to talk to you, and if you say nothing, you make it look like their mic drop has convinced you. Brilliant move.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed May 27, 2020 8:05 am

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 7:53 am
Tangentially, don't you love it when someone gets into a heated discussion and then says they're going to stop responding to anything anyone says? Because if you continue to try to change their mind, you look stupid for talking to someone who has said they aren't going to talk to you, and if you say nothing, you make it look like their mic drop has convinced you. Brilliant move.
Generally when someone makes a clear indication that they have said all they are going to say on the subject matter , my default setting is to cajole or goad another response.
I won't be doing it here as unless any new evidence or government cock ups happen.

Latest one is that the government will not be seeking to compensate people fined for driving somewhere in order to get childcare for children.
A clear indicator it's one rule for the elite and one for the plebs
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Callum Todd » Wed May 27, 2020 9:30 am

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 7:53 am
Tangentially, don't you love it when someone gets into a heated discussion and then says they're going to stop responding to anything anyone says? Because if you continue to try to change their mind, you look stupid for talking to someone who has said they aren't going to talk to you, and if you say nothing, you make it look like their mic drop has convinced you. Brilliant move.
I believe in this community it is known as a "power play". :)

Srsly though, there's nothing wrong with clear indicators of one's entry and exit points of a conversation. There's no clear end point to any debate so you have to leave it at some point. Such things can't go on indefinitely, especially when the main point one is trying to make is that the topic of conversation is not a worthy one! I also think I really have said everything I have to say, and I have resorted to repeating myself a few times already.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Acolyte
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Wed May 27, 2020 9:45 am

Yeah, I think I just have this sense of unease that the exit point comes after a long post without any chance to respond. But then again, if it didn't, that would mean there would have been unaddressed points from the other point of view. In fact, whenever you choose to exit the conversation, something goes unaddressed, unless somehow everyone comes into accordance before that point. So maybe there's nothing I can do about that sense of unease :)

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Wed May 27, 2020 11:19 am

Re: 'private life' as some kind of concern. Basically, nah. He is in the public eye, therefore his personal life is a matter of public interest, and the typical privacy regulations have exemptions which are relevant to the story. You may not like it personally but, with the exceptions of photographers not socially distancing outside his house, there is no legal or ethical issue with this.
  • Article 8 of the ECHR (part of UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998) deals with the right to private life, and makes specific provision for interference "in the interests of national security, public safety... [and] protection of health or morals". As the Cummings incident sets a precedent that compromises public safety and health, his private life is not really protected in this instance.
  • His right to private life is negated somewhat by the fact his wife wrote an article about their experiences with COVID-19 for The Spectator. They made the decision to open up their family life regarding COVID-19 to the public. This impacts on their reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • There are privacy clauses in both the IPSO Editor's Code of Conduct and the Ofcom Broadcasting Code which make provision for, respectively, public interest exemptions (pick and mix which ones you think apply to Cummings, I'd argue there are quite a few that are relevant to the story) and consideration of how much the person is in the public eye. He's the chief adviser - he's in the public eye and if his actions undermine government guidance then this is absolutely fair game to be scrutinised. Especially as, as I've outlined previously, there is enormous public interest in the story (you'll have to take that up with the wider public).
On a fully subjective note, I could not give less of a shit about shops reopening. I don't want to go shopping, I want to see my family. Usually I love shopping, but if I'm going to compromise my safety, I'd rather doing it by seeing the people/pets I love than risking it from idiots in M&S who don't respect social distancing for items that they could buy online anyway. The government would have been better to introduce limited social bubbles at the same time as this - it's miserable to think that you can meet a family member in a shop, surrounded by randoms veering around erratically, but you can't go to the family home.

I have loads more quibbles ('witch hunt' is such a stupid phrase - people were literally murdered in witch trials for centuries. Cummings is just being scrutinised for like a week before the press moves on. can you hear my tiny violin?) but my RSI is flaring up so I'm pretty much done. Plus it's cruel to make Gevin think that C4C is becoming relevant again x
"There's leaders, and there's followers, but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower" - Aristotle

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Wed May 27, 2020 2:48 pm

The way the media are camping outside his house, refusing to socially distance, and playing campaign videos at his house proves him right if anything that he shouldn't have stayed in London. Whilst I don't want to be whataboutish, the way this has received wall-to-wall coverage for five days straight whereas there have been at least two Labour MPs who undeniably broke the rules is getting a bit silly. We've just had a situation where the press drove Caroline Flack to her death, but clearly they haven't learned their lesson. I don't think anyone deserves to have press camping outside their house. And now the media's bias is coming into question again, not least this brazenly biased monologue at the start of Newsnight. And we have Emily Thornberry actively encouraging this now, which is just tribal in the extreme.

I seriously can't believe you're defending the media scrumming around him, though, Jen. Not least because it's hypocrisy in the extreme (we're going to break the rules to moan about a guy allegedly breaking the rules), but there is a big difference between being scrutinised and being harassed, not least the fact that he had his son with him at one point when they were surrounding him. Gev is right, though, the media aren't even asking the right questions (Matt Hancock has clearly had enough of Robert Peston whenever he asks a silly question). The only journalist on Monday who actually appeared to adapt their question in light of Cummings's statement was (oddly) from the Mail. I'd like to know if Leo Varadkar is getting the same witch-hunt treatment in Ireland since he broke the rules as well, or if it's just the British media that's scum.

The question now is how long does this story go on for before people actually move on - we're not going to get anything more out of the government on this, since they've clearly stated they're now trying to draw a line under this. Let's bear in mind we're 4 years away from a general election and the government won't care about poll ratings now (as they almost had to on a day-to-day basis since 2016, when an election could have happened at any time). I seriously doubt anyone in 2024 will say "well I was going to vote Tory but Dominic Cummings drove to a castle 4 years ago so I won't". The government can afford to lose political capital now, and losing Dominic Cummings would cost them more than keeping him. For now.

Cummings's writings, however, do appear to back up some of his claims: in 2017, he wrote an article on why Leave won, during which he explicitly states his memory is rubbish. So when all the evidence is pieced together things do appear to stack up on his version of events.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Acolyte
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Wed May 27, 2020 2:59 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 2:48 pm
I seriously can't believe you're defending the media scrumming around him, though, Jen. Not least because it's hypocrisy in the extreme (we're going to break the rules to moan about a guy allegedly breaking the rules), but there is a big difference between being scrutinised and being harassed, not least the fact that he had his son with him at one point when they were surrounding him.
I don't see anywhere in Jen's posts where she defends the press breaking social distancing rules (in fact, I see the opposite), nor where she defends actual harassment. Surely it is possible to believe that the story is deserving of the attention it is receiving without giving a full blessing to the tactics used by the press?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed May 27, 2020 4:08 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 2:48 pm
The question now is how long does this story go on for before people actually move on - we're not going to get anything more out of the government on this, since they've clearly stated they're now trying to draw a line under this. Let's bear in mind we're 4 years away from a general election and the government won't care about poll ratings now (as they almost had to on a day-to-day basis since 2016, when an election could have happened at any time). I seriously doubt anyone in 2024 will say "well I was going to vote Tory but Dominic Cummings drove to a castle 4 years ago so I won't". The government can afford to lose political capital now, and losing Dominic Cummings would cost them more than keeping him. For now.
Stuff comes back up for elections all the time. You'd be naive to think it wouldn't. People will obviously shut up about it in the meantime, but if the Johnson/Cummings machine is still operating at the time of the next election, it will get coverage. No question.
Cummings's writings, however, do appear to back up some of his claims: in 2017, he wrote an article on why Leave won, during which he explicitly states his memory is rubbish. So when all the evidence is pieced together things do appear to stack up on his version of events.
Sorry - what here is supposed to back up his version of events? I don't think either writing an article on why leave won or having a rubbish memory make his excuse for his trip to Barnard Castle look any more genuine.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Graeme Cole » Wed May 27, 2020 4:23 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 2:48 pm
The question now is how long does this story go on for before people actually move on - we're not going to get anything more out of the government on this, since they've clearly stated they're now trying to draw a line under this. Let's bear in mind we're 4 years away from a general election and the government won't care about poll ratings now (as they almost had to on a day-to-day basis since 2016, when an election could have happened at any time). I seriously doubt anyone in 2024 will say "well I was going to vote Tory but Dominic Cummings drove to a castle 4 years ago so I won't". The government can afford to lose political capital now, and losing Dominic Cummings would cost them more than keeping him. For now.
Yes, I remember very well when Nick Clegg promised in 2010 to vote against any increase in tuition fees, then six months into the next parliament voted to treble them, then at the 2015 general election everyone had forgotten about it and there were no repercussions at all.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Wed May 27, 2020 4:41 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 4:23 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 2:48 pm
The question now is how long does this story go on for before people actually move on - we're not going to get anything more out of the government on this, since they've clearly stated they're now trying to draw a line under this. Let's bear in mind we're 4 years away from a general election and the government won't care about poll ratings now (as they almost had to on a day-to-day basis since 2016, when an election could have happened at any time). I seriously doubt anyone in 2024 will say "well I was going to vote Tory but Dominic Cummings drove to a castle 4 years ago so I won't". The government can afford to lose political capital now, and losing Dominic Cummings would cost them more than keeping him. For now.
Yes, I remember very well when Nick Clegg promised in 2010 to vote against any increase in tuition fees, then six months into the next parliament voted to treble them, then at the 2015 general election everyone had forgotten about it and there were no repercussions at all.
In his book, David Cameron says there are two types of gaffes: there are ones where you're missing a target (immigration 100,000 eg), having a cock-up, and so on (which is exactly this Cummings affair), and the ones where you actively break a promise: the Clegg stuff. This is no worse than the New Labour scandals of the early 00s which didn't really affect them.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Callum Todd » Wed May 27, 2020 4:44 pm

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 9:45 am
Yeah, I think I just have this sense of unease that the exit point comes after a long post without any chance to respond. But then again, if it didn't, that would mean there would have been unaddressed points from the other point of view. In fact, whenever you choose to exit the conversation, something goes unaddressed, unless somehow everyone comes into accordance before that point. So maybe there's nothing I can do about that sense of unease :)
There is chance to respond. I explicitly stated in my post that I would respond again if someone makes a convincing point to change my mind, meaning I am reading responses but just have nothing more to say. In any conversation where you're not just talking over one another (which isn't really a conversation anyway) then someone has to speak last. That's unavoidable. All my declaration of having nothing more to say shows is that that person won't be me. So it's myself who I've taken the opportunity to respond away from, nobody else.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Mark Murray
Series 70 Champion
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 8:07 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Mark Murray » Thu May 28, 2020 6:02 am

Quite simple- Cummings did break the law, and should be sacked!
Taken from the statement he was given the platform to have in the rose garden of 10 Downing Street, which is ridiculous in itself.

The exception that was in place at the time related to children in an abusive situation. No-one else in the population had an interpretation on that which Cummings had of childcare

1) When his wife had suspected Covid symptoms, he went back into work the same day putting colleagues at risk!
2) Next excuse she was sick, but it was not covid, and he then went to Durham in case he became incapacitated and couldnt look after his child...hmmm either it was covid symptoms or it was not. If it was, then he should not have gone home, gone back into work, and then left the house again on a trip to Durham.(rules very clear). If it was not, then why did he need to go to Durham to seek potential childcare (rules very clear)
3) He went to Barnard castle on his wife's birthday to test his eyesight. Considering 46 mins away each way, and his wife can drive, this is just ludicrous excuse and an insult to people that people will buy this bs,
4) He went on a 600 mile journey at least (the trips he has admitted to)....and didnt know whether he filled up with petrol at some stage....hmmmmm

The whole bs that he has come out with, which the PM would have heard before the public did, is bad in itself. That the PM didnt sack him immediately and subjected the population to this advisor's hour long statement is even worse. It has shown Boris to be an extremely weak PM, completely dependant on this advisor. Boris has been voted in, not Cummings, and it is his job to manage his staff. He thinks, as he has sent Cummings out to give the above statement, that this is good enough and no further explanations needed. Wrong

Boris has undermined the message that has been given from the start of the guidance they have had from scientists as he keeps telling us. One rule for the elite class, and the other for the plebs is so blatant that a lot of people no longer trust what the government tell them. the easy visual answer the massive drop in approval ratings for the government, the hard visual answer, the increase in second wave of tragedy as people no longer listen to what they are being told.

The government should be held to account, and the population are perfectly entitled to feel aggrieved about this. I dont agree that people should be expected to just move on, to let the elitist carry on and get away with it... and in other news, no review of those people that have been fined for childcare purposes..

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Fri May 29, 2020 12:37 am

Durham Police have said he's not going to be fined, and what he did "might have been a minor breach" of the regulations. Going to Durham was within the rules.

Let's all move on now.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Noel Mc
Acolyte
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Noel Mc » Fri May 29, 2020 7:06 am

On my phone, so can't quote. Just responding to two things:

Police don't have the power to definitively say someone broke the law, that power lies with the courts. So when the police say 'might have broke the law', all the word 'might' means is that it would need to be confirmed by a court. As far as they are concerned, he did break the law.

Regarding Varadkar, he did face a lot of scrutiny over being in the park. It was fairly unanimous however that he didn't actually break any rules (within the correct distance from his house, socially distanced etc.). He didn't even 'break the spirit of the rules.'

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4017
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri May 29, 2020 8:21 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:37 am
Durham Police have said he's not going to be fined, and what he did "might have been a minor breach" of the regulations. Going to Durham was within the rules.

Let's all move on now.
Move along now , nothing to see !
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri May 29, 2020 8:32 pm

I just watched today's Have I Got News For You. Brutal. A must watch.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Fri May 29, 2020 9:19 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 8:32 pm
I just watched today's Have I Got News For You. Brutal. A must watch.
Have I Got News For You hasn't been "brutal" in years. And hasn't been impartial since the referendum.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9931
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri May 29, 2020 9:44 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 2:48 pm
Cummings's writings, however, do appear to back up some of his claims: in 2017, he wrote an article on why Leave won, during which he explicitly states his memory is rubbish. So when all the evidence is pieced together things do appear to stack up on his version of events.
As well as this just being a massive non-sequitur, he probably edited this article later because it suited his story. He has form.

I think it's all a load of Barney Castle.
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 9:19 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 8:32 pm
I just watched today's Have I Got News For You. Brutal. A must watch.
Have I Got News For You hasn't been "brutal" in years. And hasn't been impartial since the referendum.
Well it was brutal today. The panellists all come with their own opinions. How do you make it impartial?

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Cummings and goings

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Fri May 29, 2020 10:24 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 9:44 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 2:48 pm
Cummings's writings, however, do appear to back up some of his claims: in 2017, he wrote an article on why Leave won, during which he explicitly states his memory is rubbish. So when all the evidence is pieced together things do appear to stack up on his version of events.
As well as this just being a massive non-sequitur, he probably edited this article later because it suited his story. He has form.
Given the article I was referring to was in the non-Cummings-supporting Spectator and is one of the most cited pieces of academia on my course, I doubt it. It's actually a great read on why Leave won, kyboshing some of the rubbish excuses the media made (and still make) about Remain's dire campaign. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dom ... um-was-won
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests