That letter, gut wrenching as it is, is as much a protest against lockdown as it is against Cummings.
I was listening to a leading dentist on the radio talking about the awful privations that some unfortunates have gone through and are still going through because the industry was summarily shut down in panic and has not re-opened.
Lockdown has unleashed a terrible barbarism is shattering our country socially and economically.
I;ve said it consistently and as the evidence mounts I believe it more than ever.
Long lockdown is the worst policy mistake by any British government, ever. By a street.
Long lockdown where the high and the mighty could come and go as they please was the worst policy mistake by any government.
How many government advisors and Cabinet ministers have seen a dentist in last eight weeks?
We should be told.
Very few. Dentists are closed* as they need PPE suitable for Aerosol Generating Procedures. It is not like garden centres.
* There are a few equipped for emergency work.
The senior dentist guy reckoned many now have the equipment .
What do you think about the desperate suffering and the wave of medieval style treatments those barbaric rules have unleashed?
Are you telling me they are worth it? Even in the questionable circumstance that they make any difference whatsoever.
Aerosol Generating procedures needing PPE is not barbaric, or bullshit. It is essential for safety of staff and other patients.
My elderly mother has a broken tooth with associated infection on antibiotics at present. However due to age and previous lung damage from TB, she is nursing it along. She knows what the risks are, even if you cannot see them.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
So to repeat my question of last night. Do you think this is a competent administration, and this fuck up the last they will make?
Yes and no.
All governments face pressure and fuck ups. Any that didn't are clearly not facing pressure or making tough choices.
So you give them a free pass on everything. Fair enough. Not what I would call a paragon of critical thinking but I certainly understand your position.
No I don't give them a free pass on everything. I just don't expect godliness nor am I naive or partisan enough to view "my side" as perfect.
Its a cost benefit analysis the good that they do has to outweigh the cost of the fuckups by a sufficient margin ... And be better than the alternative.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law.
Seems to sum it up well. Re: 5) are you assuming this trip was within 14 days or outside of it?
Does that make any difference? during April we weren't supposed to travel for exercise..
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
And Cummings did no good to them. He despises them. He literally holds Parliament and MPs in contempt.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Excellent post.
The daft thing is this could have been dealt with:
Boris: I have met Dominic. I understand the serious family issues that arose and how hard this was and the tough decisions that had to be made. However those decisions are having to be many by many everyday across the country, etc.
Dominic writes a letter to Boris on the same theme and offers his resignation.
Boris does the decent thing accepting the difficult circumstances and understanding that and although a mistake was made under difficult circumstances declines to accept the resignation as getting over the pandemic is more important than this.
Yep - brains the size of a planet but miss the blatently obvious get out clause.
BluestBlue's indomitability would be admirable in a better cause - he is a lion led by donkeys.
He is, of course, right that nobody will be debating this in 2024. The objective problem is that confidence is blown early on. Johnson's appeal has always been predominantly that people like him - I don't think anyone has ever had many illusions about his expert grasp of detail.
A lot of voters don't really analyse things much - if they like a party leader and they're worried by his rival, that's good enough. The lasting risk for Johnson is that neither of those things may now be true.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law.
Seems to sum it up well. Re: 5) are you assuming this trip was within 14 days or outside of it?
Makes no difference. If he was supposed to be self isolating it makes it worse, but no-one, well or ill, was allowed to leave their premises without reasonable excuse on 12 April.
Incidentally the best 'reasonable excuse' to use would probably be exercise, as it is hard to disprove and the law did not say you could not travel a distance for exercise. That was just guidance.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
So to repeat my question of last night. Do you think this is a competent administration, and this fuck up the last they will make?
Yes and no.
All governments face pressure and fuck ups. Any that didn't are clearly not facing pressure or making tough choices.
Competent governments are defined by how they deal with the fuck-ups. No. 10 owns this fuck-up, they have one or two days tops to deal with it properly.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
Really. Even if you subsequently find out something that you find offensive about that person.
Can’t believe they made Scott set his alarm AGAIN on a Bank Holiday to post tweets in a doomed cause.
Tough break Scott.
What doomed cause is this? I'm genuinely baffled by that term!
To get Dom - in revenge for Brexit.
That’s all this is about - in the end.
I think you'll find that most non-crazy people barely even remember Brexit now. All that nonsense feels as though it happened in a different universe, given what's happened since.
The couple of remaining Boris apologists are trying to whip up the Brexit culture wars in a desperate attempt to save their man, unfortunately for them nobody's buying it. Interesting that the most incensed Tory MPs appear to be those from the old red wall seats.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
So to repeat my question of last night. Do you think this is a competent administration, and this fuck up the last they will make?
Yes and no.
All governments face pressure and fuck ups. Any that didn't are clearly not facing pressure or making tough choices.
So you give them a free pass on everything. Fair enough. Not what I would call a paragon of critical thinking but I certainly understand your position.
No I don't give them a free pass on everything. I just don't expect godliness nor am I naive or partisan enough to view "my side" as perfect.
Its a cost benefit analysis the good that they do has to outweigh the cost of the fuckups by a sufficient margin ... And be better than the alternative.
I think that's what has changed for me. Labour doesn't seem like a complete fuck up party right now. If Jez was still in charge I probably would have stuck it out and tried to make amends with all of this bullshit but now I don't need to. Starmer wouldn't be a terrible PM and it looks like he wants to win from the centre and brexit will be a non-issue by the time we get to 2024.
From a practical point of view the difference between lockdown and quarantine is what is so damaging.
You can rely on most people to follow most lockdown rules most of the time because they are about self-interest. The virus is out there, stay home to avoid catching it.
Quarantine is different. That is: you might have it, even though you don't have symptoms, stay home to avoid spreading it to anyone else, so that everyone else can be safe to enjoy the summer sunshine.
Quarantine is an exercise of self-denial for the common good. There's no benefit to the individual.
Dominic Cummings doesn't have to abide by it. He doesn't have to make that sacrifice, because he's better than us. How many chumps will observe quarantine when their social superiors don't have to?
Knowing that people who believe that they are "above average" (ie mostly everyone) well not abide by quarantine, why would I do anything that brings me into contact with a stranger?
The government is in a situation where they can neither enforce quarantine, or end lockdown. It's a right fucking mess.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
And that is how you end up charged with conspiracy...
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Excellent post.
The daft thing is this could have been dealt with:
Boris: I have met Dominic. I understand the serious family issues that arose and how hard this was and the tough decisions that had to be made. However those decisions are having to be many by many everyday across the country, etc.
Dominic writes a letter to Boris on the same theme and offers his resignation.
Boris does the decent thing accepting the difficult circumstances and understanding that and although a mistake was made under difficult circumstances declines to accept the resignation as getting over the pandemic is more important than this.
Yep - brains the size of a planet but miss the blatently obvious get out clause.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law.
Seems to sum it up well. Re: 5) are you assuming this trip was within 14 days or outside of it?
Does that make any difference? during April we weren't supposed to travel for exercise..
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong - but I don`t think I am. We`ve always been able to drive to a place and then exercise. This was never against the law. A poster here clarified this (can`t remember who). Then in April it was clarified along the lines of "it`s ok as long as the walk takes longer than the drive".
Only or tangental interest now I suppose. He has to go for the good of the government that he works for.
Can’t believe they made Scott set his alarm AGAIN on a Bank Holiday to post tweets in a doomed cause.
Tough break Scott.
What doomed cause is this? I'm genuinely baffled by that term!
To get Dom - in revenge for Brexit.
That’s all this is about - in the end.
I think you'll find that most non-crazy people barely even remember Brexit now. All that nonsense feels as though it happened in a different universe, given what's happened since.
The couple of remaining Boris apologists are trying to whip up the Brexit culture wars in a desperate attempt to save their man, unfortunately for them nobody's buying it. Interesting that the most incensed Tory MPs appear to be those from the old red wall seats.
Yes, they've just seen their majority disappear in a waft of empty funerals.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
So to repeat my question of last night. Do you think this is a competent administration, and this fuck up the last they will make?
Yes and no.
All governments face pressure and fuck ups. Any that didn't are clearly not facing pressure or making tough choices.
So you give them a free pass on everything. Fair enough. Not what I would call a paragon of critical thinking but I certainly understand your position.
No I don't give them a free pass on everything. I just don't expect godliness nor am I naive or partisan enough to view "my side" as perfect.
Its a cost benefit analysis the good that they do has to outweigh the cost of the fuckups by a sufficient margin ... And be better than the alternative.
I think that's what has changed for me. Labour doesn't seem like a complete fuck up party right now. If Jez was still in charge I probably would have stuck it out and tried to make amends with all of this bullshit but now I don't need to. Starmer wouldn't be a terrible PM and it looks like he wants to win from the centre and brexit will be a non-issue by the time we get to 2024.
Starmer would raise taxes, spend even more than Boris, renationalise the rail, gas and electricity industries and Royal Mail and take the UK back into the single market.
He would still be the most left-wing PM we have had since Harold Wilson even if he is not as extreme as Corbyn
You know what will piss off the frothers even more? The Tories should circulate a list of Labour MPs and officials who've broken the lockdown - and you can bet there will be some - and ask Starmer if he's going to immediately expel them from the party, since the silly hypocrite has already said he would have fired Cummings.
Why is Stephen Kinnock still a Labour MP, Mr. Starmer?
One rule for Labour, and one for everyone else?
He didn’t break quarantine. Nor did he stay away from his house overnight. Nor did he even enter another dwelling.
Equating Kinnock’s minor infringement of the strict letter of the law with this coach and horses action by Cummings is frankly bonkers. Even Jenrick was far less culpable.
Funny how all the excuses come out when it's not Cummings, isn't it? Where's the absolutist moralizing now?
How about Tahir Ali?
Oh, he's a Labour MP and not Cummings, so it's all right, of course.
Well, now you’re showing your true colours. Let’s make it easy.
CUMMINGS DROVE A SICK PERSON 262 MILES ACROSS ENGLAND TO STAY IN A SECOND HOUSE WHEN GOVERNMENT RULES WERE TO STAY AT HOME. HE DID THIS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO STAY IN A HOUSE WITH A GARDEN. HE ALSO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW.
KINNOCK WENT TO HIS FATHER’S HOUSE FOR A SHORT CHAT. HE STAYED IN THE GARDEN. HE DID NOT STAY AWAY OVERNIGHT. HE WAS NOT SHOWING SYMPTOMS.
NO REASONABLE OR INTELLIGENT PERSON WOULD DRAW A PARALLEL BETWEEN THE TWO.
Is that clear enough? Do you and other apologists for this loathsome scumbag who has broken every rule in the book need it in words of one syllable?
Your tribalism is blinding you to what has happened, to the extent you are indulging in utterly ridiculous whataboutery. And that is why this is cutting through and making you hated.
You want credibility? He and Johnson have to go. To be blunt, they should never have been there to start with. This sort of disaster was always on the cards given how fundamentally stupid and arrogant they both are.
Incidentally I don’t speak as any supporter of Kinnock. But your attempts to draw parallels are embarrassing you.
Yes, shouting really does makes it look like the exposure of your double standards hasn't gotten to you. Either they should all go, or none of them should.
'got to you', not 'gotten to you". Are you posting from UK?
Yes, and have you never used an Americanism in your life? There's some historical debate as to the antiquity of the form in British English, in any case.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
Had they gone into bat for Ferguson then they might be in a slightly better position. BUt they didn’t, so they’re not.
The NFL coach and pundit Jeff Reinbold is a fan of the saying “what have you done for me lately?” Boris may find his MPs asking that question of him shortly.
Can’t believe they made Scott set his alarm AGAIN on a Bank Holiday to post tweets in a doomed cause.
Tough break Scott.
What doomed cause is this? I'm genuinely baffled by that term!
To get Dom - in revenge for Brexit.
That’s all this is about - in the end.
I think you'll find that most non-crazy people barely even remember Brexit now. All that nonsense feels as though it happened in a different universe, given what's happened since.
The couple of remaining Boris apologists are trying to whip up the Brexit culture wars in a desperate attempt to save their man, unfortunately for them nobody's buying it. Interesting that the most incensed Tory MPs appear to be those from the old red wall seats.
Yes, they've just seen their majority disappear in a waft of empty funerals.
Indeed. I could see Boris lose as badly as Major if he runs in 2024. His core appeal has taken a serious hit over the weekend.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law.
Seems to sum it up well. Re: 5) are you assuming this trip was within 14 days or outside of it?
Does that make any difference? during April we weren't supposed to travel for exercise..
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong - but I don`t think I am. We`ve always been able to drive to a place and then exercise. This was never against the law. A poster here clarified this (can`t remember who). Then in April it was clarified along the lines of "it`s ok as long as the walk takes longer than the drive".
Only or tangental interest now I suppose. He has to go for the good of the government that he works for.
My perception was that you shouldn't travel to exercise, and perception rather than reality is what is going to drive this rage for (from what I see online) it is moving beyond quiet anger into rage.
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law. Whether he should have been isolating or not at the time makes no difference. The same would be true for everyone going anywhere on 12 April.
I agree. I support parents doing the best in their eyes for their children. If that's all there is to the story I will accept parents doing what parents do for their children just as I would for any parent on any side of politics.
If there's other trips without a reasonable explanation then the law has been broken and he should go.
I strongly disagreed with Boris on a pedantic bit of nomenclature. I think it's reasonable to say that Cummings followed 'the instincts of a parent'. I find it entirely unreasonable to say he followed 'the instincts of every parent'. Every parent is not the same and not every parent has the same instincts.
Two parents in the same situation can make two different choices and neither be wrong.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
Not overheard in 10 Downing St, 4pm 24th May. 'Dominic, you have been incredibly stupid. Why in Gods name did you do it. Mumbled 'Sorry. Won't again' 'OK I'll go out and tell the Press you're apologised, I've accepted it and the matters closed! Result. 2-3 minutes of muttering about no resignation and the matter's over.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
Nope, this has nothing to do with Brexit, this is the fact that our leaders have subjected the general public to 8 weeks of lockdown telling people not to do XYZ, while merrily doing XYZ themselves.
If you look as JK Rowling's tweet what you really see is emptiness behind what the British people have been asked to do and the reasons they have been asked to do it.
It was never worth it then and it isn;t worth it now.
There are reasons why no British government ever shut down the country's economy and house arrested its healthy citizens. Reasons of humanity, liberty, freedom and civilisation.
Hopefully these will become important again.
Look, if you are going to make this your chosen specialised subject, have the basic courtesy to inform yourself about it. Read a book or even wikipedia about the 1665 plague, find out what the watch was and what it did to the houses of the infected, learn what the government did about theatres, and ask yourself why the government would bother to shut down the rest of the economy when 95% of trade shut itself down anyway.
The key word there is infected. Sick people were quarantined. There was no house arrest of the healthy or restrictions on their movement, as far as I;m aware.
And the fact you have to go back to the ignorant depths of 1665 in an attempt to justify this barbaric and catastrophic policy speaks volumes to me.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
In practice, it ought to have been possible to arrange for a friend or relative to deliver the kid to the grandparents. I reckon I could have done that with one of mine if I had been in that situation, and DM would have had more resources than people like me.
That doesn't however deal with the issue of putting others at risk, notably the aged parents, but then the whole silly business makes less and less sense by the hour.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
So to repeat my question of last night. Do you think this is a competent administration, and this fuck up the last they will make?
Yes and no.
All governments face pressure and fuck ups. Any that didn't are clearly not facing pressure or making tough choices.
So you give them a free pass on everything. Fair enough. Not what I would call a paragon of critical thinking but I certainly understand your position.
No I don't give them a free pass on everything. I just don't expect godliness nor am I naive or partisan enough to view "my side" as perfect.
Its a cost benefit analysis the good that they do has to outweigh the cost of the fuckups by a sufficient margin ... And be better than the alternative.
I think that's what has changed for me. Labour doesn't seem like a complete fuck up party right now. If Jez was still in charge I probably would have stuck it out and tried to make amends with all of this bullshit but now I don't need to. Starmer wouldn't be a terrible PM and it looks like he wants to win from the centre and brexit will be a non-issue by the time we get to 2024.
Starmer would raise taxes, spend even more than Boris, renationalise the rail, gas and electricity industries and Royal Mail and take the UK back into the single market.
He would still be the most left-wing PM we have had since Harold Wilson even if he is not as extreme as Corbyn
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law.
Seems to sum it up well. Re: 5) are you assuming this trip was within 14 days or outside of it?
Does that make any difference? during April we weren't supposed to travel for exercise..
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong - but I don`t think I am. We`ve always been able to drive to a place and then exercise. This was never against the law. A poster here clarified this (can`t remember who). Then in April it was clarified along the lines of "it`s ok as long as the walk takes longer than the drive".
Only or tangental interest now I suppose. He has to go for the good of the government that he works for.
My perception was that you shouldn't travel to exercise, and perception rather than reality is what is going to drive this rage for (from what I see online) it is moving beyond quiet anger into rage.
Yes. The fact that we are in an era where, as you say, what matters is "perception rather than reality" is troubling to me.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law.
Seems to sum it up well. Re: 5) are you assuming this trip was within 14 days or outside of it?
Does that make any difference? during April we weren't supposed to travel for exercise..
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong - but I don`t think I am. We`ve always been able to drive to a place and then exercise. This was never against the law. A poster here clarified this (can`t remember who). Then in April it was clarified along the lines of "it`s ok as long as the walk takes longer than the drive".
Only or tangental interest now I suppose. He has to go for the good of the government that he works for.
The law (not guidance) did not ban travelling to exercise on 12 April.
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
I'm fairly certain we all remember the headlines of a month ago. An issue that isn't "going away" and one that will damage the party for a generation.
"Care Home Coronavirus Deaths Top 4,000"
Is anyone talking about care homes today? No, they're all too busy frothing about a single SpaD to give a damn. And in a month they'll be frothing about something else. That's the nature of the news cycle and the human attention span.
I remember when making overseas NHS workers pay the NHS surcharge was the defining moment of this government's tenure
Who gives a f8ck about that now.
It is because it has been superseded by this and of course the Govt changed its policy.
Again Corollary: MP steals mars bar - outrage, then commits murder. Mars bar gets forgotten naturally.
MP steals Mars Bar, and when he gets found out he goes back to the shop to pay for it.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
In practice, it ought to have been possible to arrange for a friend or relative to deliver the kid to the grandparents. I reckon I could have done that with one of mine if I had been in that situation, and DM would have had more resources than people like me.
That doesn't however deal with the issue of putting others at risk, notably the aged parents, but then the whole silly business makes less and less sense by the hour.
Regardless of any considerations about the child. Setting all that aside and supposing for the sake of argument that the child was a reasonable excuse for Cummings to travel.
I'm asking what was the excuse for his wife to travel.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Make it a UK-wide referendum on dissolving the union.
BluestBlue's indomitability would be admirable in a better cause - he is a lion led by donkeys.
He is, of course, right that nobody will be debating this in 2024. The objective problem is that confidence is blown early on. Johnson's appeal has always been predominantly that people like him - I don't think anyone has ever had many illusions about his expert grasp of detail.
A lot of voters don't really analyse things much - if they like a party leader and they're worried by his rival, that's good enough. The lasting risk for Johnson is that neither of those things may now be true.
Spot on, I think. Boris has been a winner throughout his career through being liked - bit of a laugh, good bloke, bit of a rebel, says what he thinks and doesn't care what other people think.
I think this episode has, in three days, damaged his 'likeability' both short term and long term. Women have never been as keen on him as men; I think his standing with decent 'blokes' will have taken a bit hit this weekend. He's not such a laugh after all.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law.
Seems to sum it up well. Re: 5) are you assuming this trip was within 14 days or outside of it?
Does that make any difference? during April we weren't supposed to travel for exercise..
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong - but I don`t think I am. We`ve always been able to drive to a place and then exercise. This was never against the law. A poster here clarified this (can`t remember who). Then in April it was clarified along the lines of "it`s ok as long as the walk takes longer than the drive".
Only or tangental interest now I suppose. He has to go for the good of the government that he works for.
The law (not guidance) did not ban travelling to exercise on 12 April.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
We are, I think, in agreement. The PM was and is on thin ice.
BluestBlue's indomitability would be admirable in a better cause - he is a lion led by donkeys.
He is, of course, right that nobody will be debating this in 2024. The objective problem is that confidence is blown early on. Johnson's appeal has always been predominantly that people like him - I don't think anyone has ever had many illusions about his expert grasp of detail.
A lot of voters don't really analyse things much - if they like a party leader and they're worried by his rival, that's good enough. The lasting risk for Johnson is that neither of those things may now be true.
Laughing at a lazy, bumbling clown is one thing, Finding out that all the time the lazy, bumbling clown has been laughing back at is is another.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
Because she couldn't be by herself so if Dom travelled she also needed to travel.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
Not overheard in 10 Downing St, 4pm 24th May. 'Dominic, you have been incredibly stupid. Why in Gods name did you do it. Mumbled 'Sorry. Won't again' 'OK I'll go out and tell the Press you're apologised, I've accepted it and the matters closed! Result. 2-3 minutes of muttering about no resignation and the matter's over.
Johnson has handled this appallingly. Completely incompetent.
Like many couples, I guess, my wife and I discussed the nightmare scenario "what if we both get it at the same time". And our children are young teenagers. Imagine if we had a three year old.
Fortunately we`ve avoided the nightmare scenario so far ...
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
You have forgotten the polling on how popular dumping the Scots and Nirish is with English Tory Party members. A lot more than one might expect.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
So here is a real life example. I wonder if you will still hold that belief. A (now ex) friend and colleague was successfully prosecuted for holding and viewing child pornography on his computer. He even tried to justify it and was subsequently prosecuted a 2nd time for the same offence.
Do you stand by him or not. I didn't. I have never seen him or spoken to him since.
The vast majority of Northern Irish voters oppose a United Ireland still and Foster would be replaced by Ian Paisley Jnr if she even considered moving on from diehard Unionism.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Make it a UK-wide referendum on dissolving the union.
That is an interesting idea - as it removes the objection to the English voting in a Scottish independence referendum.
But what happens if the English and ... want out, and the ... want in? Well, let democracy rule ...
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law.
Seems to sum it up well. Re: 5) are you assuming this trip was within 14 days or outside of it?
Does that make any difference? during April we weren't supposed to travel for exercise..
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong - but I don`t think I am. We`ve always been able to drive to a place and then exercise. This was never against the law. A poster here clarified this (can`t remember who). Then in April it was clarified along the lines of "it`s ok as long as the walk takes longer than the drive".
Only or tangental interest now I suppose. He has to go for the good of the government that he works for.
The law (not guidance) did not ban travelling to exercise on 12 April.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
Because she couldn't be by herself so if Dom travelled she also needed to travel.
So you're suggesting that not wanting to be by herself was a reasonable excuse for leaving her home and travelling to Durham?
I mean in legal terms according to the COVID-19 regulations governing when people could leave their homes.
BluestBlue's indomitability would be admirable in a better cause - he is a lion led by donkeys.
He is, of course, right that nobody will be debating this in 2024. The objective problem is that confidence is blown early on. Johnson's appeal has always been predominantly that people like him - I don't think anyone has ever had many illusions about his expert grasp of detail.
A lot of voters don't really analyse things much - if they like a party leader and they're worried by his rival, that's good enough. The lasting risk for Johnson is that neither of those things may now be true.
Spot on, I think. Boris has been a winner throughout his career through being liked - bit of a laugh, good bloke, bit of a rebel, says what he thinks and doesn't care what other people think.
I think this episode has, in three days, damaged his 'likeability' both short term and long term. Women have never been as keen on him as men; I think his standing with decent 'blokes' will have taken a bit hit this weekend. He's not such a laugh after all.
The "I think he followed the instinct of every father" stuff is absolutely enraging to paid up members of the "decent bloke" club.
The implication, that in diligently doing the right thing in the national interest, THEY were the ones who were poor fathers (or children, or grandparents, or brothers or whatever) is such a kick in the balls. It's horrific.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
Conspiracy? Doing the driving makes you the blameworthy one?
But in any case as a family/household member Mr C also broke quarantine.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
DOMINIC Cummings’ lockdown visit to a popular dogging site was entirely appropriate, the government has confirmed.
Boris Johnson’s senior aide seemingly broke official guidelines by travelling from London to Durham, during which time he visited local dogging site Crealey Peak at 3am.
A police source said: “CCTV footage shows that Mr Cummings spent the day of March 30 trying to visit tourist attractions like Durham Pencil Museum only to find them shut because nobody else was allowed to go outside.
“That night, officers spotted him at the dogging site. He flashed his headlights twice and they approached to find him dressed as General Zod from Superman 2, but with a thong instead of trousers.
“He initially said ‘Kneel before Zod’, however on realising the men were police officers he became angry and shouted ‘I’m your boss, piss off or I’ll have your pets killed.'”
A government spokesman said: “Dogging counts as exercise and you can legally leave your house for 30 minutes a day to have sex with strangers in a disused quarry.
“And if you don’t have to local dogging spot you can travel up to 130 miles to find one. That’s just common sense really.”
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law. Whether he should have been isolating or not at the time makes no difference. The same would be true for everyone going anywhere on 12 April.
I agree. I support parents doing the best in their eyes for their children. If that's all there is to the story I will accept parents doing what parents do for their children just as I would for any parent on any side of politics.
If there's other trips without a reasonable explanation then the law has been broken and he should go.
I strongly disagreed with Boris on a pedantic bit of nomenclature. I think it's reasonable to say that Cummings followed 'the instincts of a parent'. I find it entirely unreasonable to say he followed 'the instincts of every parent'. Every parent is not the same and not every parent has the same instincts.
Two parents in the same situation can make two different choices and neither be wrong.
Yes, that's absolutely right. I would have disregarded the lockdown if I had thought it in my child'sbest interests to do so AND there would be minimal risk to others. I'm far from sure his action makes sense however. Seem illogical and even a little heartless.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
BluestBlue's indomitability would be admirable in a better cause - he is a lion led by donkeys.
He is, of course, right that nobody will be debating this in 2024. The objective problem is that confidence is blown early on. Johnson's appeal has always been predominantly that people like him - I don't think anyone has ever had many illusions about his expert grasp of detail.
A lot of voters don't really analyse things much - if they like a party leader and they're worried by his rival, that's good enough. The lasting risk for Johnson is that neither of those things may now be true.
Spot on, I think. Boris has been a winner throughout his career through being liked - bit of a laugh, good bloke, bit of a rebel, says what he thinks and doesn't care what other people think.
I think this episode has, in three days, damaged his 'likeability' both short term and long term. Women have never been as keen on him as men; I think his standing with decent 'blokes' will have taken a bit hit this weekend. He's not such a laugh after all.
Johnson trades on the "would be a good mate to go down the pub with" vote. But "good mates" also call xxx out if xxx's stepped over the mark. If he doesn't 'fess up and apologies then his friends stop going down the pub with him.
Boris yesterday overstepped the line and if he doesn't 'fess up, he will lose a lot of voters.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
Sky gets spain situation wrong again. Most of the country has had bar terraces open for two weeks now 50% capacity 2m distancing, table service only. Today half the country goes to phase two where restaurants and bars can open indoors with the above conditions. More retail outlets will be open commercial centers etc at 40% capacity etc etc just annoying Sky over simplify it. If you break the rules you get fined the one thing they are losing control of is inter province travel which is banned as more and more second homers turn up from Madrid and Murcia which is a concern. We’re still in phase 1 Valencia but can get a meal and drink out if I want.
At least you have the weather for outdoor restaurants and bars, it must make it easier to loosen the regs. Although we've had good weather throughout this so far we know it won't last. Pleased you seem to be up and about again, we should be at a villa in Xabia right now instead of stuck in our garden, such is life!
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
IIRC, it was a rather more infamous NSDAP organization that put loyalty into its motto.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
Conspiracy? Doing the driving makes you the blameworthy one?
But in any case as a family/household member Mr C also broke quarantine.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law. Whether he should have been isolating or not at the time makes no difference. The same would be true for everyone going anywhere on 12 April.
I agree. I support parents doing the best in their eyes for their children. If that's all there is to the story I will accept parents doing what parents do for their children just as I would for any parent on any side of politics.
If there's other trips without a reasonable explanation then the law has been broken and he should go.
I strongly disagreed with Boris on a pedantic bit of nomenclature. I think it's reasonable to say that Cummings followed 'the instincts of a parent'. I find it entirely unreasonable to say he followed 'the instincts of every parent'. Every parent is not the same and not every parent has the same instincts.
Two parents in the same situation can make two different choices and neither be wrong.
Yes, that's absolutely right. I would have disregarded the lockdown if I had thought it in my child'sbest interests to do so AND there would be minimal risk to others. I'm far from sure his action makes sense however. Seem illogical and even a little heartless.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
Conspiracy? Doing the driving makes you the blameworthy one?
But in any case as a family/household member Mr C also broke quarantine.
Yes, true.
OH yes, blindingly so to any neutral observer [edit].
Which is what makes it so strange that our PB Tories are continiong to fly in ever-decreasing circles of self-justification, like the oozlum bird.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
You can't think of a valid reason for her travelling?
I`m guessing that they wouldn`t want to leave her alone when poorly. But that`s not the point I`m making. Why isn`t Mrs Cummings being criticised? Maybe she is and I`ve missed it.
The point I'm making - and you were responding to me - is whether there was a valid reason in legal terms for her to travel.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
Simple solution for people who value loyalty above all else. Get a dog.
DOMINIC Cummings’ lockdown visit to a popular dogging site was entirely appropriate, the government has confirmed.
Boris Johnson’s senior aide seemingly broke official guidelines by travelling from London to Durham, during which time he visited local dogging site Crealey Peak at 3am.
A police source said: “CCTV footage shows that Mr Cummings spent the day of March 30 trying to visit tourist attractions like Durham Pencil Museum only to find them shut because nobody else was allowed to go outside.
“That night, officers spotted him at the dogging site. He flashed his headlights twice and they approached to find him dressed as General Zod from Superman 2, but with a thong instead of trousers.
“He initially said ‘Kneel before Zod’, however on realising the men were police officers he became angry and shouted ‘I’m your boss, piss off or I’ll have your pets killed.'”
A government spokesman said: “Dogging counts as exercise and you can legally leave your house for 30 minutes a day to have sex with strangers in a disused quarry.
“And if you don’t have to local dogging spot you can travel up to 130 miles to find one. That’s just common sense really.”
As I said yesterday evening, history will record this weekend as the moment Johnson lost 2024.
I believe this will prove fatal for Johnson but not necessarily for the Tories. The comparison between bumbling Boris and SKS is getting starker by the day though.
There are still those who are following the chain of logic of:
1: There is a controversy involving Cummings 2: Cummings was the architect of Leave 3: Ergo it’s all a conspiracy by Remainers 4: Hold the line.
The possibility that there might actually be a non-Brexit related controversy involving Cummings hasn’t yet penetrated. That the Mail, plus many prominent Brexiteers have lambasted him over this might be a clue that, you know, this is about something he’s actually done - would require a big shift in outlook.
I swear if Cummings was to shoot someone in the street shouting "I'm glad I Domminic Cummings kill him" there would be people on here posting "prosecuting Dominic Cummings would just be giving in to the left wing anti-Brexit hate mob"
Why haven't they gone after Stephen Kinnock with the same zeal? Or Tahir Ali?
Perhaps because:
1) neither was at the centre of government 2) neither was carrying the deadly viruses with them on their visit.
Cummings was literally one of the key architects of the whole lockdown policy and its communication.
So you`d think he knew the rules.
Will be interesting if we do get a blow-by-blow account of his actions, accompanied by evidence that he checked it was OK first. The fact that he was, it`s said, talked to by police but but not charged, and police guidance gives him cover.
This story could take an unexpected turn yet, though I doubt it because surely Johnson would have made a better defence than yesterday`s abysmal effort.
Kinnock was promoted to the Shadow front bench by Starmer two weeks after his little episode. Starmer said yesterday if he was PM he would sack Cummings, yet not only did he not sack Kinnock he promoted him.
Double standards much?
Could you describe how they were equaivalent?
I could but if you cannot see it for yourself then there is little point
Cummings and/or his wife was displaying symptoms.
Kinnnock wasn't.
Oh look already not comparable.
Cummings and his wife were arranging family health care for their young child while Kinnock drove 200 miles for a bit of birthday cake, so yes definitely not comparable. You can add Jenrick and Ali to that as well.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
Nope, this has nothing to do with Brexit, this is the fact that our leaders have subjected the general public to 8 weeks of lockdown telling people not to do XYZ, while merrily doing XYZ themselves.
I agree with your general point but for the media it has everything to do with Brexit.
Look out for calls in the next few days for Johnson to be replaced by Hunt, which will mean the transition period being extended.
As an ardent Leaver I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am nervous about it.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
Simple solution for people who value loyalty above all else. Get a dog.
Nah, they'd still call me a Nazi - Hitler had a dog, you see...
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
I'm fairly certain we all remember the headlines of a month ago. An issue that isn't "going away" and one that will damage the party for a generation.
"Care Home Coronavirus Deaths Top 4,000"
Is anyone talking about care homes today? No, they're all too busy frothing about a single SpaD to give a damn. And in a month they'll be frothing about something else. That's the nature of the news cycle and the human attention span.
I remember when making overseas NHS workers pay the NHS surcharge was the defining moment of this government's tenure
Who gives a f8ck about that now.
It is because it has been superseded by this and of course the Govt changed its policy.
Again Corollary: MP steals mars bar - outrage, then commits murder. Mars bar gets forgotten naturally.
MP steals Mars Bar, and when he gets found out he goes back to the shop to pay for it.
Not acceptable at all, and the pojnt being made is?
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:
1) What do you mean by 'rule'. This can cover law, advice, guidance and practice. For example there is no 'law' about social distancing but lots of guidance. Let's take it to mean 'law'.
2) The relevant law is fairly simple. It is illegal to leave the premises you are living in without 'reasonable excuse'. The list of 13 excuses in the section is only exemplary and not exhaustive. The section says so.
3) The PM has majored on going to and staying at Durham. For this to be legal all DC needed was a 'reasonable excuse' to leave his premises and take up residence in another. This is at least arguable (though BTW not to me remotely convincing).
4) The Barnard Castle trip is more interesting, because it has neither been admitted or denied - so it almost certainly is true. No explanation has been offered. In practice that must be either because there isn't one or they are only going to suggest one if necessity dictates, as the ice is so thin.
5) If he left his premises to go to Barnard Castle without a reasonable excuse he broke the law. Whether he should have been isolating or not at the time makes no difference. The same would be true for everyone going anywhere on 12 April.
I agree. I support parents doing the best in their eyes for their children. If that's all there is to the story I will accept parents doing what parents do for their children just as I would for any parent on any side of politics.
If there's other trips without a reasonable explanation then the law has been broken and he should go.
I strongly disagreed with Boris on a pedantic bit of nomenclature. I think it's reasonable to say that Cummings followed 'the instincts of a parent'. I find it entirely unreasonable to say he followed 'the instincts of every parent'. Every parent is not the same and not every parent has the same instincts.
Two parents in the same situation can make two different choices and neither be wrong.
Yes, that's absolutely right. I would have disregarded the lockdown if I had thought it in my child'sbest interests to do so AND there would be minimal risk to others. I'm far from sure his action makes sense however. Seem illogical and even a little heartless.
Was he really thinking of the kid, or himself?
Question - how old are Mr Cummings parents?
The childcare was from his sister not his parents.
Comments
My elderly mother has a broken tooth with associated infection on antibiotics at present. However due to age and previous lung damage from TB, she is nursing it along. She knows what the risks are, even if you cannot see them.
Its a cost benefit analysis the good that they do has to outweigh the cost of the fuckups by a sufficient margin ... And be better than the alternative.
But they must swear fealty.
It's not a good system of Government...
Dom C is a blackmailer
Boris J is willing to let himself be blackmailed.
I hope that isn't true.
He is, of course, right that nobody will be debating this in 2024. The objective problem is that confidence is blown early on. Johnson's appeal has always been predominantly that people like him - I don't think anyone has ever had many illusions about his expert grasp of detail.
A lot of voters don't really analyse things much - if they like a party leader and they're worried by his rival, that's good enough. The lasting risk for Johnson is that neither of those things may now be true.
Incidentally the best 'reasonable excuse' to use would probably be exercise, as it is hard to disprove and the law did not say you could not travel a distance for exercise. That was just guidance.
Bloody Remainers!
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1264660171797782530?s=20
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1264682792429989891?s=20
You can rely on most people to follow most lockdown rules most of the time because they are about self-interest. The virus is out there, stay home to avoid catching it.
Quarantine is different. That is: you might have it, even though you don't have symptoms, stay home to avoid spreading it to anyone else, so that everyone else can be safe to enjoy the summer sunshine.
Quarantine is an exercise of self-denial for the common good. There's no benefit to the individual.
Dominic Cummings doesn't have to abide by it. He doesn't have to make that sacrifice, because he's better than us. How many chumps will observe quarantine when their social superiors don't have to?
Knowing that people who believe that they are "above average" (ie mostly everyone) well not abide by quarantine, why would I do anything that brings me into contact with a stranger?
The government is in a situation where they can neither enforce quarantine, or end lockdown. It's a right fucking mess.
Only or tangental interest now I suppose. He has to go for the good of the government that he works for.
He would still be the most left-wing PM we have had since Harold Wilson even if he is not as extreme as Corbyn
The NFL coach and pundit Jeff Reinbold is a fan of the saying “what have you done for me lately?” Boris may find his MPs asking that question of him shortly.
My main issue with all of this is not that I am supporting Cummings or the government, in fact I have never voted Tory in my life and I am 65 soon.
My issue is that this has little to do with the pandemic and is all about bringing this goverment down in order to thwart Brexit. They even tried to get Johnson out because he knocked a glass of wine over!
If there's other trips without a reasonable explanation then the law has been broken and he should go.
I strongly disagreed with Boris on a pedantic bit of nomenclature. I think it's reasonable to say that Cummings followed 'the instincts of a parent'. I find it entirely unreasonable to say he followed 'the instincts of every parent'. Every parent is not the same and not every parent has the same instincts.
Two parents in the same situation can make two different choices and neither be wrong.
'Dominic, you have been incredibly stupid. Why in Gods name did you do it.
Mumbled 'Sorry. Won't again'
'OK I'll go out and tell the Press you're apologised, I've accepted it and the matters closed!
Result. 2-3 minutes of muttering about no resignation and the matter's over.
That doesn't however deal with the issue of putting others at risk, notably the aged parents, but then the whole silly business makes less and less sense by the hour.
https://twitter.com/jamiemcleod02/status/1264731537913925632?s=20
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made
Some things really are unforgiveable
I'm asking what was the excuse for his wife to travel.
I think this episode has, in three days, damaged his 'likeability' both short term and long term. Women have never been as keen on him as men; I think his standing with decent 'blokes' will have taken a bit hit this weekend. He's not such a laugh after all.
Like many couples, I guess, my wife and I discussed the nightmare scenario "what if we both get it at the same time". And our children are young teenagers. Imagine if we had a three year old.
Fortunately we`ve avoided the nightmare scenario so far ...
Do you stand by him or not. I didn't. I have never seen him or spoken to him since.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUKKBN20C0WF
The Tories and LDs are both staunch Unionist parties, most Scottish Labour voters are also Unionists, their Nationalist voters are now voting SNP
So exactly like the Mafia then
But what happens if the English and ... want out, and the ... want in? Well, let democracy rule ...
The new line of defence is even more pitiful than the previous ones .
If you or someone you live with has symptoms of coronavirus:
do not leave your home for any reason
I mean in legal terms according to the COVID-19 regulations governing when people could leave their homes.
You really think that?
The implication, that in diligently doing the right thing in the national interest, THEY were the ones who were poor fathers (or children, or grandparents, or brothers or whatever) is such a kick in the balls. It's horrific.
But in any case as a family/household member Mr C also broke quarantine.
Just an observation.
Boris Johnson’s senior aide seemingly broke official guidelines by travelling from London to Durham, during which time he visited local dogging site Crealey Peak at 3am.
A police source said: “CCTV footage shows that Mr Cummings spent the day of March 30 trying to visit tourist attractions like Durham Pencil Museum only to find them shut because nobody else was allowed to go outside.
“That night, officers spotted him at the dogging site. He flashed his headlights twice and they approached to find him dressed as General Zod from Superman 2, but with a thong instead of trousers.
“He initially said ‘Kneel before Zod’, however on realising the men were police officers he became angry and shouted ‘I’m your boss, piss off or I’ll have your pets killed.'”
A government spokesman said: “Dogging counts as exercise and you can legally leave your house for 30 minutes a day to have sex with strangers in a disused quarry.
“And if you don’t have to local dogging spot you can travel up to 130 miles to find one. That’s just common sense really.”
https://bit.ly/2XFSn5V
Well that's Superman II ruined for me.
Was he really thinking of the kid, or himself?
1. Con
2. Labour
3. Lib Dems
?
Boris yesterday overstepped the line and if he doesn't 'fess up, he will lose a lot of voters.
Which is what makes it so strange that our PB Tories are continiong to fly in ever-decreasing circles of self-justification, like the oozlum bird.
Not wanting to be alone when poorly is very natural, but it's obvious that that was never intended to be a valid reason to travel, because people with COVID-19 symptoms, including all those living alone, were explicitly told not to leave their homes.
So that's no good.
I believe this will prove fatal for Johnson but not necessarily for the Tories. The comparison between bumbling Boris and SKS is getting starker by the day though.
Look out for calls in the next few days for Johnson to be replaced by Hunt, which will mean the transition period being extended.
As an ardent Leaver I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I am nervous about it.