If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just an advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
Yes, but at what cost? Cummings was toxic before, he`s deadly now.
Some perspective on child safeguarding (which I understand is a legal term which applies to children vulnerable to abuse - not "we might not be able to make him his favourite pudding") - apols for the #tag....
Oh boy, I didn't realise people had been throwing around "child safeguarding" as the reason for Don's actions.
That's just straight up incompetent as a defence. Sure to a large bunch of people it will sound reasonable (of course I would safeguard my child) but for people who actually involved with children professionally (which will be a surprisingly large percentage of the population what with schools, nurseries, child minders, social services, health care workers etc) that will be like a red rag to a bull for misusing the term so blatantly.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
As a ScoTory, do you think you might please be willing to express a view on SCUP collective statements on the matter (or lack of)? It'd be interesting to have your insights.
The Tory Party needs someone with a reputation for decency who can handle the stresses of the job to step forward and take over the leadership. They need Theresa May.
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...
Indeed.
BluestBlue’s post is an exposition of the criminal mind.
I actually thought of the Freemasons, or at least their reputation in British public life, fairly or otherwise, when I read Mr Blue's post originally. The point about loyalty trumping all else, and reciprocal favours.
If the police look at it again and don’t prosecute, would that be enough for Dom to survive?
I don`t think so. I doubt that he`ll be prosecuted, but trial by media will have pretty much got him anyway. Massive liability to the government now. Plus possible Tory MP, and perhaps cabinet, resignations.
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?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
Isn't that the point, Philip. The government have been asking us to make these kinds of sacrifices but when the main advisor to the PM refuses to do so it's not a problem. Why should we now continue to make those sacrifices of not seeing friends and family?
The government said in early April via the DCMO that if you had childcare issues then obviously that's an exceptional scenario and you need to do what's right for the children.
If this is about childcare then I couldn't care less since everyone could do the same thing.
And making a trip to some Durham castle? Driving 300 miles? Not asking your brother in law in London to help out? Not asking friends to deliver food? My best mate and his wife had the virus at the same time, they looked after their 2 year old daughter and did home delivery for food.
The rules don't actually allow ordinary people to send their children to relatives to be cared for. That's the whole point of quarantine.
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.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
Not sure what the cost of a parking ticket is round your way is but a mags court can fine up to £5,000. He’d also get a criminal record, and if he were not part of the political elite, a dismissal - but it’s one law for him and one for us of course.
Really? £5000 for a first offence, when he was afraid for his child? Only if Scott_xP happens to be the magistrate. As for the 'criminal record', no one who hasn't already convicted him in the court of public opinion is going to change their mind whether he gets a fine or not.
Firstly you are assuming that the court will accept the “won’t anyone think of the children defence” (aka the Helen Lovejoy defence) as mitigation, which tends not to go down well when other people’s children are put at risk - through viral infection for example. Secondly I said “up to £5,000”. He could easily be fined over £100 which is far more than your hypothetical parking ticket, in most of the country anyway. Finally, there appear to have been aggravating circumstances - like seeking to cover it up.
I don’t think he would be fined £5,000 (I have no precedents to work on given how new the regs are) but I’m confident that the criminal record and level of fine would be of greater consequence than a parking ticket.
The Tory Party needs someone with a reputation for decency who can handle the stresses of the job to step forward and take over the leadership. They need Theresa May.
She would indeed be the best person for the job in hand. Which is hilarious. And deeply sad.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Don't also forget that the PCC is a political position, in this case a former union rep appointed by the Labour council in Durham.
Not elected? I thought they were now
He was appointed to temporarily hold the position, following the death in office of the elected PCC.
He's only unelected because it wasn't worth holding an election when there was going to be on 9 months later after the previous PCC died.
And it really won't matter as if Steven White wants the job he is going to be re-elected. County Durham likes sane, former police officers running their police force.
Correct on the circumstances. I think the election was supposed to have been this month, but was postponed for a year alongside all the other May 2020 elections.
The danger is that the (political, Labour) PCC oversteps by insisting on putting half the force on Cummings as if it were a murder case - it allows DC to present himself as being the victim of a witch hunt.
My view is still that the media need to stand up the story they printed about DC travelling to the castle, if they want to secure his resignation.
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!
Walking with a stick now, back to oncologist Wednesday to have another go with the chemo, the limited freedoms make it so much easier to bear I can’t imagine being totally left to my own thoughts 24*7. Hope to be out of phase 1 next week. Looks like spain are going to open borders 1/7 with no quarantine but think it will be selective as to where from.
Good luck with the chemo. I had a kidney removed 5 years ago because of a tumour but fortunately they caught it early enough not to require chemo. I hope things continue to improve.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Are they doing anything different?
They spoke to him (or someone) who said "Didn't do it, Guv"
Now additional evidence has come to light they are investigating further.
Are they? Your link is to an unelected PCC asking the Chief Constable to look at the case again.
If the police look at it again and don’t prosecute, would that be enough for Dom to survive?
I don`t think so. I doubt that he`ll be prosecuted, but trial by media will have pretty much got him anyway. Massive liability to the government now. Plus possible Tory MP, and perhaps cabinet, resignations.
Indeed, public opinion is enough for this to bring down Cummings and possibly Johnson. But I was just thinking that if the police opened an investigation it might buy some time. Obviously a conviction would be curtains, but if not, it does give them some cover.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
Yes, but at what cost? Cummings was toxic before, he`s deadly now.
That's ultimately Boris's call. Some might be worried about relying on the judgment of someone who has behaved like this. But its his call.
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.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Good post. Thanks for that.
Technically, if you settle the initial offence by paying the fixed penalty fine, is it still a criminal offence?
Secondly, in your view are Mr C and Mrs C equally culpable? Does it make a difference that 1) Mrs C was the covid-positive party and 2) Mr C was the driver (presumably)?
A fixed penalty is a way of avoiding prosecution and thus a criminal charge and record. So, while technically it is still a criminal offence, you are accepting a civil outcome as opposed to a criminal one.
If both left their house without reasonable excuse they are both culpable - unless Mrs C can prove she was forced into the car I suppose.
Does anybody know just how unwell Mrs C was?
If it was a mild case, was all the palaver necessary? If it was a serious case, it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting a 250 mile drive. From what I hear, even the bathroom is a long way if you have it bad.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Don't also forget that the PCC is a political position, in this case a former union rep appointed by the Labour council in Durham.
Not elected? I thought they were now
He was appointed to temporarily hold the position, following the death in office of the elected PCC.
He's only unelected because it wasn't worth holding an election when there was going to be on 9 months later after the previous PCC died.
And it really won't matter as if Steven White wants the job he is going to be re-elected. County Durham likes sane, former police officers running their police force.
Correct on the circumstances. I think the election was supposed to have been this month, but was postponed for a year alongside all the other May 2020 elections.
The danger is that the (political, Labour) PCC oversteps by insisting on putting half the force on Cummings as if it were a murder case - it allows DC to present himself as being the victim of a witch hunt.
My view is still that the media need to stand up the story they printed about DC travelling to the castle, if they want to secure his resignation.
It's actually a non political appointment. Labour who Ron Hogg was the candidate for, already have a candidate for the 2021 election and it's not Steven White but someone who is currently working for Durham Police. In fact Steven White was nominated by all parties following Ron Hogg's diagnosis.
This is about the Government accusing Durham Constabulary of lying.
If the police look at it again and don’t prosecute, would that be enough for Dom to survive?
I don`t think so. I doubt that he`ll be prosecuted, but trial by media will have pretty much got him anyway. Massive liability to the government now. Plus possible Tory MP, and perhaps cabinet, resignations.
Indeed, public opinion is enough for this to bring down Cummings and possibly Johnson. But I was just thinking that if the police opened an investigation it might buy some time. Obviously a conviction would be curtains, but if not, it does give them some cover.
Yes maybe - would be significant from a will Cummings stay/go betting perspective.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Are they doing anything different?
They spoke to him (or someone) who said "Didn't do it, Guv"
Now additional evidence has come to light they are investigating further.
Are they? Your link is to an unelected PCC asking the Chief Constable to look at the case again.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
As a ScoTory, do you think you might please be willing to express a view on SCUP collective statements on the matter (or lack of)? It'd be interesting to have your insights.
I am not a member of the Conservative party. Never have been. I would suggest, however, that the benefits of sticking your head above the parapet in the current storm are pretty limited and the downsides obvious. If I was advising SCUP I would encourage them to say as little as possible.
I’m struck at how forcefully the bishops have condemned all this. They don’t have much influence nowadays but still, they have been remarkably forthright.
They and their clergy will have seen the pain of people at funerals of loved ones they were unable to see, unable to be with, unable to comfort.
If it was a mild case, was all the palaver necessary? If it was a serious case, it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting a 250 mile drive. From what I hear, even the bathroom is a long way if you have it bad.
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.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
Not sure what the cost of a parking ticket is round your way is but a mags court can fine up to £5,000. He’d also get a criminal record, and if he were not part of the political elite, a dismissal - but it’s one law for him and one for us of course.
Really? £5000 for a first offence, when he was afraid for his child? Only if Scott_xP happens to be the magistrate. As for the 'criminal record', no one who hasn't already convicted him in the court of public opinion is going to change their mind whether he gets a fine or not.
Firstly you are assuming that the court will accept the “won’t anyone think of the children defence” (aka the Helen Lovejoy defence) as mitigation, which tends not to go down well when other people’s children are put at risk - through viral infection for example. Secondly I said “up to £5,000”. He could easily be fined over £100 which is far more than your hypothetical parking ticket, in most of the country anyway. Finally, there appear to have been aggravating circumstances - like seeking to cover it up.
I don’t think he would be fined £5,000 (I have no precedents to work on given how new the regs are) but I’m confident that the criminal record and level of fine would be of greater consequence than a parking ticket.
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) If your vehicle is illegally parked you may be issued with a parking ticket for £130 or £80, depending on the severity of the contravention.
for CCTV contraventions, a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 21 days from the date of the penalty charge notice for moving traffic contraventions (MTC), a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 14 days from the date of the penalty charge notice any other parking tickets, a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 14 days
I assume from this that the Gove power couple won't be dumping on Dom anytime soon. Slightly surprised that Grimes has grifted his way to writing a piece for Conhome, doolally cesspit that it is.
If the police look at it again and don’t prosecute, would that be enough for Dom to survive?
I don`t think so. I doubt that he`ll be prosecuted, but trial by media will have pretty much got him anyway. Massive liability to the government now. Plus possible Tory MP, and perhaps cabinet, resignations.
Indeed, public opinion is enough for this to bring down Cummings and possibly Johnson. But I was just thinking that if the police opened an investigation it might buy some time. Obviously a conviction would be curtains, but if not, it does give them some cover.
Yes maybe - would be significant from a will Cummings stay/go betting perspective.
It's the arrogance that will do for one or both of them. A smidgen of contrition may have made a difference, now it needs a shedload.
Here’s the Scot Tory MSP frontbench. Now fess up, how many had you heard of? How many would you recognise? How many do you know where they stand on key issues?
Jackson Carlaw Maurice Golden Murdo Fraser Dean Lockhart Miles Briggs Liz Smith Adam Tomkins Liam Kerr Graham Simpson Donald Cameron Rachael Hamilton
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
As a ScoTory, do you think you might please be willing to express a view on SCUP collective statements on the matter (or lack of)? It'd be interesting to have your insights.
I am not a member of the Conservative party. Never have been. I would suggest, however, that the benefits of sticking your head above the parapet in the current storm are pretty limited and the downsides obvious. If I was advising SCUP I would encourage them to say as little as possible.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
As a ScoTory, do you think you might please be willing to express a view on SCUP collective statements on the matter (or lack of)? It'd be interesting to have your insights.
I am not a member of the Conservative party. Never have been. I would suggest, however, that the benefits of sticking your head above the parapet in the current storm are pretty limited and the downsides obvious. If I was advising SCUP I would encourage them to say as little as possible.
If I was Rennie or Leonard I'd be giving a statement saying the ilence from the SCons means they clearly support Big Dom's actions.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
As a ScoTory, do you think you might please be willing to express a view on SCUP collective statements on the matter (or lack of)? It'd be interesting to have your insights.
I am not a member of the Conservative party. Never have been. I would suggest, however, that the benefits of sticking your head above the parapet in the current storm are pretty limited and the downsides obvious. If I was advising SCUP I would encourage them to say as little as possible.
It appears by way of telepathy or other means that they've absorbed your advice!
I assume from this that the Gove power couple won't be dumping on Dom anytime soon. Slightly surprised that Grimes has grifted his way to writing a piece for Conhome, doolally cesspit that it is.
I have had a longstanding loathing of Johnson ever since reading his fucking pig ignorant review of a Lamborghini Gallardo in the early 2000s. However, I had always thought that the British political system ensured that a person who ascended to the office of PM would be, au moins, capable of doing the basics of the jobs. Over the last few days I have come to realise that, at a most basic level, the job of PM is beyond him. It's quite disconcerting even though I am a Johnson hater by trade.
I assume from this that the Gove power couple won't be dumping on Dom anytime soon. Slightly surprised that Grimes has grifted his way to writing a piece for Conhome, doolally cesspit that it is.
I completely respect Grimes' s hussle. I mean if it wasn't trivially easy to be a right wing grifter.
Just say culture war seven times, Complain about being silenced and then go on QT to talk about the issues you are not allowed to talk about. Bang, done.
I’m struck at how forcefully the bishops have condemned all this. They don’t have much influence nowadays but still, they have been remarkably forthright.
They and their clergy will have seen the pain of people at funerals of loved ones they were unable to see, unable to be with, unable to comfort.
I’m struck at how forcefully the bishops have condemned all this. They don’t have much influence nowadays but still, they have been remarkably forthright.
They and their clergy will have seen the pain of people at funerals of loved ones they were unable to see, unable to be with, unable to comfort.
More probably empty collection plates
Surely the bishops pushed lockdown of parish churches within their realm, rather than demanded its lifting?
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
As a ScoTory, do you think you might please be willing to express a view on SCUP collective statements on the matter (or lack of)? It'd be interesting to have your insights.
I am not a member of the Conservative party. Never have been. I would suggest, however, that the benefits of sticking your head above the parapet in the current storm are pretty limited and the downsides obvious. If I was advising SCUP I would encourage them to say as little as possible.
It appears by way of telepathy or other means that they've absorbed your advice!
Happily many of my clients pay me for the blindingly obvious! Or at least they did pre-lockdown. We need to get back to that ASAP.
I assume from this that the Gove power couple won't be dumping on Dom anytime soon. Slightly surprised that Grimes has grifted his way to writing a piece for Conhome, doolally cesspit that it is.
I completely respect Grimes' s hussle. I mean if it wasn't trivially easy to be a right wing grifter.
Just say culture war seven times, Complain about being silenced and then go on QT to talk about the issues you are not allowed to talk about. Bang, done.
Did you read it? Comparing it to a 6th form essay would be flattering.
Quite like 'lazy and entitled political classy', an old Fleet Street pro like Sarah must be flustered to make a typo like that
I have had a longstanding loathing of Johnson ever since reading his fucking pig ignorant review of a Lamborghini Gallardo in the early 2000s. However, I had always thought that the British political system ensured that a person who ascended to the office of PM would be, au moins, capable of doing the basics of the jobs. Over the last few days I have come to realise that, at a most basic level, the job of PM is beyond him. It's quite disconcerting even though I am a Johnson hater by trade.
Lots of people who know him well were of the firm and settled opinion that 'PM Boris Johnson' was a phrase that ought to stay in the realms of black comedy.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
As a ScoTory, do you think you might please be willing to express a view on SCUP collective statements on the matter (or lack of)? It'd be interesting to have your insights.
I am not a member of the Conservative party. Never have been. I would suggest, however, that the benefits of sticking your head above the parapet in the current storm are pretty limited and the downsides obvious. If I was advising SCUP I would encourage them to say as little as possible.
It appears by way of telepathy or other means that they've absorbed your advice!
Happily many of my clients pay me for the blindingly obvious! Or at least they did pre-lockdown. We need to get back to that ASAP.
That is why lawyers are usually judged to be in the highest risk professions from AI technology. An automaton could do a better job than most lawyers.
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?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
No one is talking about abandoning her, Phil. You maybe get the kid collected, or sent with a friend/relative; worst case you drive up there with the kid and return straight away. Durham and back in a day is not impossible.
Then you look after your sick wife.
Anyway, I don't want you to think that I am buying Cummings' version of events. It's sounding more and more like a bit of a yarn. My guess is that neither parent was sick, or at least not seriously so, and they just fancied some quality time up in Durham with the family. That was clearly not defensible so a cock and bull story was manufactured.
Of course the evidence for this supposition is thin, but then Boris and pals are not doing much of a job of putting the facts out there, so I don't feel ashamed about speculating a little.
I assume from this that the Gove power couple won't be dumping on Dom anytime soon. Slightly surprised that Grimes has grifted his way to writing a piece for Conhome, doolally cesspit that it is.
I have had a longstanding loathing of Johnson ever since reading his fucking pig ignorant review of a Lamborghini Gallardo in the early 2000s. However, I had always thought that the British political system ensured that a person who ascended to the office of PM would be, au moins, capable of doing the basics of the jobs. Over the last few days I have come to realise that, at a most basic level, the job of PM is beyond him. It's quite disconcerting even though I am a Johnson hater by trade.
Go on, what did Johnson say about the Gallardo? Was he one of those idiots who loved the shitty first-gen 'flappy paddle' gearboxes?
I assume from this that the Gove power couple won't be dumping on Dom anytime soon. Slightly surprised that Grimes has grifted his way to writing a piece for Conhome, doolally cesspit that it is.
So it's the long awaited return of mass participation sport tomorrow. "Boo for Boris" at 8 pm.
We could rename it the 2 minute hate.
Orwell was a genius in his modestly British way.
I do hate Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. I wish them harm.
There.
I find that just weird and frankly more than a little disturbed. For the record I do not hate SKS, Corbyn, Nicola or even Gordon bloody Brown and I wish them all the very best of health.
More importantly, you still have 1minute 55 seconds of raving to fill.
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) If your vehicle is illegally parked you may be issued with a parking ticket for £130 or £80, depending on the severity of the contravention.
for CCTV contraventions, a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 21 days from the date of the penalty charge notice for moving traffic contraventions (MTC), a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 14 days from the date of the penalty charge notice any other parking tickets, a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 14 days
Sentencing Council Fine Band A (the lowest) is assessed at 50% of weekly income. I’m guessing Cummings is paid more than £260 a week. If he did committed the offence twice it would probably be Band B or higher. Very few parking fines for those in Cummings’ position amount to 50% of weekly income. The magistrate may use discretion, hence a slap on the risk or lower fine, but he can’t count on that.
Oh, and Mia Culpa, my criminal law knowledge is slightly rusty. The £5,000 max fine was abolished in 2015. Mags Courts now have unlimited powers to fine. My point remains the same though.
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?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
No one is talking about abandoning her, Phil. You maybe get the kid collected, or sent with a friend/relative; worst case you drive up there with the kid and return straight away. Durham and back in a day is not impossible.
Then you look after your sick wife.
Anyway, I don't want you to think that I am buying Cummings' version of events. It's sounding more and more like a bit of a yarn. My guess is that neither parent was sick, or at least not seriously so, and they just fancied some quality time up in Durham with the family. That was clearly not defensible so a cock and bull story was manufactured.
Of course the evidence for this supposition is thin, but then Boris and pals are not doing much of a job of putting the facts out there, so I don't feel ashamed about speculating a little.
Except he stayed with the child, but with access to childcare. He didn't drop off the child.
So yes leaving the wife behind would have been abandoning her. Either they all go or none of them go.
There is a (very) reasonable argument to day none of them should go. There is no argument to say he could go but had to leave her behind.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
He has the right to fire him. He has the right not to. As you say he is just and advisor and the PM clearly still wants his advice.
As a ScoTory, do you think you might please be willing to express a view on SCUP collective statements on the matter (or lack of)? It'd be interesting to have your insights.
I am not a member of the Conservative party. Never have been. I would suggest, however, that the benefits of sticking your head above the parapet in the current storm are pretty limited and the downsides obvious. If I was advising SCUP I would encourage them to say as little as possible.
It appears by way of telepathy or other means that they've absorbed your advice!
Happily many of my clients pay me for the blindingly obvious! Or at least they did pre-lockdown. We need to get back to that ASAP.
That is why lawyers are usually judged to be in the highest risk professions from AI technology. An automaton could do a better job than most lawyers.
If it was a mild case, was all the palaver necessary? If it was a serious case, it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting a 250 mile drive. From what I hear, even the bathroom is a long way if you have it bad.
She wrote a whole article about it
Sorry, I thought she wrote about Dom being sick, not herself. My misunderkerstumble.
So it's the long awaited return of mass participation sport tomorrow. "Boo for Boris" at 8 pm.
We could rename it the 2 minute hate.
Orwell was a genius in his modestly British way.
I do hate Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. I wish them harm.
There.
I find that just weird and frankly more than a little disturbed. For the record I do not hate SKS, Corbyn, Nicola or even Gordon bloody Brown and I wish them all the very best of health.
More importantly, you still have 1minute 55 seconds of raving to fill.
So it's the long awaited return of mass participation sport tomorrow. "Boo for Boris" at 8 pm.
We could rename it the 2 minute hate.
Orwell was a genius in his modestly British way.
I do hate Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. I wish them harm.
There.
I find that just weird and frankly more than a little disturbed. For the record I do not hate SKS, Corbyn, Nicola or even Gordon bloody Brown and I wish them all the very best of health.
More importantly, you still have 1minute 55 seconds of raving to fill.
I think I am just going to mark it down as trolling, and ignore said poster, CHB is a Labour party troll is approaching same.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
Wow your standards are very low. Nobody should ever resign or be fired unless they are actually convicted of a crime?
Unbelievable.
Not required if you want them on your team it's reasonable to let justice play out. Of course you have the option to fire someone if they're charged but no obligation to do so ... Certainly not if they haven't even been charged.
I think Boris screwed up the optics by not triggering an investigation. If he'd said he understood Cummings actions were for childcare but he wanted to ensure that no laws will be broken so would be asking (whoever is appropriate) to investigate and if the law was broken then Cummings would resign then I think that would have squared it away.
I think if he'd done that then partisan hacks would have continued to squeal but most reasonable people would hear there will be an investigation. And if the investigation said no law broken then fair enough.
So it's the long awaited return of mass participation sport tomorrow. "Boo for Boris" at 8 pm.
We could rename it the 2 minute hate.
Orwell was a genius in his modestly British way.
I do hate Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. I wish them harm.
There.
I find that just weird and frankly more than a little disturbed. For the record I do not hate SKS, Corbyn, Nicola or even Gordon bloody Brown and I wish them all the very best of health.
More importantly, you still have 1minute 55 seconds of raving to fill.
I don`t think I hate anyone. I recoil at the word - as I do "evil". I blame it on Christian upbringing I guess.
I suppose, for me, Trump comes closest. Farage and Owen Jones some distance behind, but both worthy of mention .
At those odds I`d take 6/4 to go with Lads. But I backed the other side of the bet yesterday and I``ll let it ride I think.
Money has come for Cummings to go.
Ladbrokes 5/4 go, 4/7 stay PP/Betfair Evens go, 8/11 stay (though it was 5/6 each of two when I started typing).
I have no bet but I'm getting all emotionally invested in this now. If he were to go it would feel amazing. It would get an actual fist pump and a guttural yell out on the terrace. The sensation will be all the stronger given he and Johnson are obviously trying so hard to stave it off. The winning goal in stoppage time is always the sweetest.
Is there any polling yet on how SKS is doing in Scotland?
Yes*. Answer, quite well: +5 to +10, which is about what Ruth Davidson used to poll.
(* beware sub-samples)
IT's interesting, because Ms Sturgeon herself is also a legal type and social democratic middle-roader - SKS has some pretty direct competition there. Not like with say Mr Corbyn vs Ms S. Or Mr Johnson!
I’m struck at how forcefully the bishops have condemned all this. They don’t have much influence nowadays but still, they have been remarkably forthright.
They and their clergy will have seen the pain of people at funerals of loved ones they were unable to see, unable to be with, unable to comfort.
Without getting into the rights or wrongs of this case, in my experience most senior Anglican clergy are rather to the left of Corbyn, and very pro EU. Thier condemnation of Cummings when provided with a suitable pretext is probably about as genuine as that of every Labour MP.
Interestingly, in the conservative evangelical bit of the CofE, which is the only bit not in terminal decline, your average minister tends to trend Tory - but this part of the church is largely unrepresented at the top.
So it's the long awaited return of mass participation sport tomorrow. "Boo for Boris" at 8 pm.
We could rename it the 2 minute hate.
Orwell was a genius in his modestly British way.
I do hate Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. I wish them harm.
There.
I find that just weird and frankly more than a little disturbed. For the record I do not hate SKS, Corbyn, Nicola or even Gordon bloody Brown and I wish them all the very best of health.
More importantly, you still have 1minute 55 seconds of raving to fill.
I don`t think I hate anyone. I recoil at the word - as I do "evil". I blame it on Christian upbringing I guess.
I suppose, for me, Trump comes closest. Farage and Owen Jones some distance behind, but both worthy of mention .
Shit, I forgot Michael MacIntyre. How could I? He`s level with Trump.
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?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
No one is talking about abandoning her, Phil. You maybe get the kid collected, or sent with a friend/relative; worst case you drive up there with the kid and return straight away. Durham and back in a day is not impossible.
Then you look after your sick wife.
Anyway, I don't want you to think that I am buying Cummings' version of events. It's sounding more and more like a bit of a yarn. My guess is that neither parent was sick, or at least not seriously so, and they just fancied some quality time up in Durham with the family. That was clearly not defensible so a cock and bull story was manufactured.
Of course the evidence for this supposition is thin, but then Boris and pals are not doing much of a job of putting the facts out there, so I don't feel ashamed about speculating a little.
Except he stayed with the child, but with access to childcare. He didn't drop off the child.
So yes leaving the wife behind would have been abandoning her. Either they all go or none of them go.
There is a (very) reasonable argument to day none of them should go. There is no argument to say he could go but had to leave her behind.
Obviously you can't read properly.
I keep saying the only reason I'm taking anything Cumming has claimed seriously is purely for the sake of argument on the narrow legal point, because some people are arguing that in narrow legal terms he didn't break the law.
As for the rights and wrongs, I don't believe a word of his story, and I don't believe he was concerned about his child, his parents, his sister or anyone else who might have been infected as a result of what he did.
So it's the long awaited return of mass participation sport tomorrow. "Boo for Boris" at 8 pm.
We could rename it the 2 minute hate.
Orwell was a genius in his modestly British way.
I do hate Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. I wish them harm.
There.
I find that just weird and frankly more than a little disturbed. For the record I do not hate SKS, Corbyn, Nicola or even Gordon bloody Brown and I wish them all the very best of health.
More importantly, you still have 1minute 55 seconds of raving to fill.
I don`t think I hate anyone. I recoil at the word - as I do "evil". I blame it on Christian upbringing I guess.
I suppose, for me, Trump comes closest. Farage and Owen Jones some distance behind, but both worthy of mention .
Only two of those three have or had the power to fuck up our lives, unless a bit of high blood pressure at Owen's latest piece counts. Personally I'd need that prerequisite to inspire hate, and on that basis Trump does it for me.
The other problem with this fiasco for the government is that we're not anywhere near out of the woods with this epidemic. If people change their behaviour in reaction to the government's abdication of responsibility, infections and deaths will start tracking up again.
This isn't something the government can put behind it and downgrade to tomorrow's fish and chip paper. As with the Poll Tax, car crashes that go on and on are the most damaging.
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?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
No one is talking about abandoning her, Phil. You maybe get the kid collected, or sent with a friend/relative; worst case you drive up there with the kid and return straight away. Durham and back in a day is not impossible.
Then you look after your sick wife.
Anyway, I don't want you to think that I am buying Cummings' version of events. It's sounding more and more like a bit of a yarn. My guess is that neither parent was sick, or at least not seriously so, and they just fancied some quality time up in Durham with the family. That was clearly not defensible so a cock and bull story was manufactured.
Of course the evidence for this supposition is thin, but then Boris and pals are not doing much of a job of putting the facts out there, so I don't feel ashamed about speculating a little.
Except he stayed with the child, but with access to childcare. He didn't drop off the child.
So yes leaving the wife behind would have been abandoning her. Either they all go or none of them go.
There is a (very) reasonable argument to day none of them should go. There is no argument to say he could go but had to leave her behind.
Obviously you can't read properly.
I keep saying the only reason I'm taking anything Cumming has claimed seriously is purely for the sake of argument on the narrow legal point, because some people are arguing that in narrow legal terms he didn't break the law.
As for the rights and wrongs, I don't believe a word of his story, and I don't believe he was concerned about his child, his parents, his sister or anyone else who might have been infected as a result of what he did.
Yes and if there was a legal case to move the child then of course it follows there was a legal case for the mother to go with the child. It's preposterous to suggest otherwise.
If there was no legal case to move the child then the mothers movement is moot since the whole scenario was illegal.
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?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
No one is talking about abandoning her, Phil. You maybe get the kid collected, or sent with a friend/relative; worst case you drive up there with the kid and return straight away. Durham and back in a day is not impossible.
Then you look after your sick wife.
Anyway, I don't want you to think that I am buying Cummings' version of events. It's sounding more and more like a bit of a yarn. My guess is that neither parent was sick, or at least not seriously so, and they just fancied some quality time up in Durham with the family. That was clearly not defensible so a cock and bull story was manufactured.
Of course the evidence for this supposition is thin, but then Boris and pals are not doing much of a job of putting the facts out there, so I don't feel ashamed about speculating a little.
Except he stayed with the child, but with access to childcare. He didn't drop off the child.
So yes leaving the wife behind would have been abandoning her. Either they all go or none of them go.
There is a (very) reasonable argument to day none of them should go. There is no argument to say he could go but had to leave her behind.
Not sure you've understood me, Phil, so for the avoidance of doubt....
Worst case is he drives up to Durham with the kid, drops him off and returns pronto to look after wife. Wouldn't be away long and can probably arrange someone to care for her in his absence. Much better though to arrange for kid to be collected, or delivered by friend/relative/or hired hand if need be. No need to to abandon wife even for a moment then.
I'm just trying to assess the plausibilty of the Cummings story, and finding it less and less so as time goes by (and neither he nor the Government seem inclined to fill in the gaps.)
So it's the long awaited return of mass participation sport tomorrow. "Boo for Boris" at 8 pm.
We could rename it the 2 minute hate.
Orwell was a genius in his modestly British way.
I do hate Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. I wish them harm.
There.
I find that just weird and frankly more than a little disturbed. For the record I do not hate SKS, Corbyn, Nicola or even Gordon bloody Brown and I wish them all the very best of health.
More importantly, you still have 1minute 55 seconds of raving to fill.
I don`t think I hate anyone. I recoil at the word - as I do "evil". I blame it on Christian upbringing I guess.
I suppose, for me, Trump comes closest. Farage and Owen Jones some distance behind, but both worthy of mention .
I have led a somewhat fortunate life and as a result I cannot think of anyone I hate. Those who have been directly hurt by someone's cruelty or selfishness will of course feel differently. I find the idea of transposing that from the very personal and specific to a public figure that I don't actually know bewildering. I find Trump morally repulsive, serially incompetent, marginally dangerous and just vile. But how on earth could I hate him? I think that would diminish me much more than him.
At those odds I`d take 6/4 to go with Lads. But I backed the other side of the bet yesterday and I``ll let it ride I think.
Money has come for Cummings to go.
Ladbrokes 5/4 go, 4/7 stay PP/Betfair Evens go, 8/11 stay (though it was 5/6 each of two when I started typing).
I have no bet but I'm getting all emotionally invested in this now. If he were to go it would feel amazing. It would get an actual fist pump and a guttural yell out on the terrace. The sensation will be all the stronger given he and Johnson are obviously trying so hard to stave it off. The winning goal in stoppage time is always the sweetest.
But my sense (just) is still that he stays.
I'm conflicted. My view is this should bring Cummings down, and if not, it could hasten Boris's departure which I suspect will happen pretty soon anyway on health grounds, and that it might even have lost the next election already.
Against that, always keep tight hold of nurse! Boris and Cummings are right on the need for investment and to oppose austerity, so from that point of view, I'd rather have them in place than someone like, say, George Osborne who thought he could cut his way to growth. Betting-wise, I've backed both sides for a profit so will cop either way next week.
I’m struck at how forcefully the bishops have condemned all this. They don’t have much influence nowadays but still, they have been remarkably forthright.
They and their clergy will have seen the pain of people at funerals of loved ones they were unable to see, unable to be with, unable to comfort.
Without getting into the rights or wrongs of this case, in my experience most senior Anglican clergy are rather to the left of Corbyn, and very pro EU. Thier condemnation of Cummings when provided with a suitable pretext is probably about as genuine as that of every Labour MP.
Interestingly, in the conservative evangelical bit of the CofE, which is the only bit not in terminal decline, your average minister tends to trend Tory - but this part of the church is largely unrepresented at the top.
My vicar is Labour but most Anglican clergy in my experience tend to be more LD.
Most Anglican church goers tend to be Tory though which creates a discrepancy which is not there in the Catholic church for example, where most of the clergy and congregation are Labour or the evangelical church where most ministers and the congregation are conservative (albeit the Pentecostal church is more Labour)
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?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
No one is talking about abandoning her, Phil. You maybe get the kid collected, or sent with a friend/relative; worst case you drive up there with the kid and return straight away. Durham and back in a day is not impossible.
Then you look after your sick wife.
Anyway, I don't want you to think that I am buying Cummings' version of events. It's sounding more and more like a bit of a yarn. My guess is that neither parent was sick, or at least not seriously so, and they just fancied some quality time up in Durham with the family. That was clearly not defensible so a cock and bull story was manufactured.
Of course the evidence for this supposition is thin, but then Boris and pals are not doing much of a job of putting the facts out there, so I don't feel ashamed about speculating a little.
Except he stayed with the child, but with access to childcare. He didn't drop off the child.
So yes leaving the wife behind would have been abandoning her. Either they all go or none of them go.
There is a (very) reasonable argument to day none of them should go. There is no argument to say he could go but had to leave her behind.
Not sure you've understood me, Phil, so for the avoidance of doubt....
Worst case is he drives up to Durham with the kid, drops it off and returns pronto to look after wife. Wouldn't be away long and can probably arrange someone to care for her in his absence. Much better though to arrange for kid to be collected, or delivered by friend/relative/or hired hand if need be. No need to to abandon wife even for a moment then.
I'm just trying to assess the plausibilty of the Cummings story, and finding it less and less so as time goes by (and neither he nor the Government seem inclined to fill in the gaps.)
Dropping the child off was never the scenario though!
The scenario was he took the kid and stayed with the kid but moved the family to be near childcare. Now if moving the child (and staying with the child) is legal then why shouldn't the mother go? Either the family moves or they don't but it's one family unit either way.
Plus returning would of course be double the mileage and may require refueling which a one way trip might not.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
I am not at all clear what Cummings actually is. Is he an adviser, a senior civil servant, a spokesperson,campaign director, the de facto head of government?
Comments
That's just straight up incompetent as a defence. Sure to a large bunch of people it will sound reasonable (of course I would safeguard my child) but for people who actually involved with children professionally (which will be a surprisingly large percentage of the population what with schools, nurseries, child minders, social services, health care workers etc) that will be like a red rag to a bull for misusing the term so blatantly.
I don’t think he would be fined £5,000 (I have no precedents to work on given how new the regs are) but I’m confident that the criminal record and level of fine would be of greater consequence than a parking ticket.
https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/1264872585306812416?s=20
The danger is that the (political, Labour) PCC oversteps by insisting on putting half the force on Cummings as if it were a murder case - it allows DC to present himself as being the victim of a witch hunt.
My view is still that the media need to stand up the story they printed about DC travelling to the castle, if they want to secure his resignation.
If it was a mild case, was all the palaver necessary? If it was a serious case, it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting a 250 mile drive. From what I hear, even the bathroom is a long way if you have it bad.
This is about the Government accusing Durham Constabulary of lying.
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1264868424926314497?s=20
That horse has bolted, the damage is done
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Police_and_Crime_Commissioner
Unbelievable.
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/transport-and-streets/parking/parking-tickets/Pages/enforcement.aspx
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)
If your vehicle is illegally parked you may be issued with a parking ticket for £130 or £80, depending on the severity of the contravention.
for CCTV contraventions, a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 21 days from the date of the penalty charge notice
for moving traffic contraventions (MTC), a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 14 days from the date of the
penalty charge notice
any other parking tickets, a 50% discount applies if it is paid within 14 days
https://twitter.com/WestminsterWAG/status/1264862500908130311?s=20
Jackson Carlaw
Maurice Golden
Murdo Fraser
Dean Lockhart
Miles Briggs
Liz Smith
Adam Tomkins
Liam Kerr
Graham Simpson
Donald Cameron
Rachael Hamilton
It's a free hit, take it.
Just say culture war seven times, Complain about being silenced and then go on QT to talk about the issues you are not allowed to talk about. Bang, done.
But the point is one I made earlier.
It is the difference between a spotty sixteen year old nicking a Mars Bar from Tesco and the Chief Constable nicking a Mars Bar from Tesco.
Is why he should go.
Orwell was a genius in his modestly British way.
Quite like 'lazy and entitled political classy', an old Fleet Street pro like Sarah must be flustered to make a typo like that
Then you look after your sick wife.
Anyway, I don't want you to think that I am buying Cummings' version of events. It's sounding more and more like a bit of a yarn. My guess is that neither parent was sick, or at least not seriously so, and they just fancied some quality time up in Durham with the family. That was clearly not defensible so a cock and bull story was manufactured.
Of course the evidence for this supposition is thin, but then Boris and pals are not doing much of a job of putting the facts out there, so I don't feel ashamed about speculating a little.
Ladbrokes 5/4 go, 4/7 stay
PP/Betfair Evens go, 8/11 stay (though it was 5/6 each of two when I started typing).
https://twitter.com/amyhsrichards/status/1264876523020042246
There.
(* beware sub-samples)
More importantly, you still have 1minute 55 seconds of raving to fill.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/fines-and-financial-orders/approach-to-the-assessment-of-fines-2/2-fine-bands/
Oh, and Mia Culpa, my criminal law knowledge is slightly rusty. The £5,000 max fine was abolished in 2015. Mags Courts now have unlimited powers to fine. My point remains the same though.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1264878110052319235?s=20
So yes leaving the wife behind would have been abandoning her. Either they all go or none of them go.
There is a (very) reasonable argument to day none of them should go.
There is no argument to say he could go but had to leave her behind.
Indulge me ... hate is a strong word - what is it that you hate?
Johnson is liberal conservative, Cummings is a liberal (not a conservative). So it can`t be conservatism that irks you. Might Brexit feature?
I think Boris screwed up the optics by not triggering an investigation. If he'd said he understood Cummings actions were for childcare but he wanted to ensure that no laws will be broken so would be asking (whoever is appropriate) to investigate and if the law was broken then Cummings would resign then I think that would have squared it away.
I think if he'd done that then partisan hacks would have continued to squeal but most reasonable people would hear there will be an investigation. And if the investigation said no law broken then fair enough.
I suppose, for me, Trump comes closest. Farage and Owen Jones some distance behind, but both worthy of mention .
But my sense (just) is still that he stays.
Interestingly, in the conservative evangelical bit of the CofE, which is the only bit not in terminal decline, your average minister tends to trend Tory - but this part of the church is largely unrepresented at the top.
I keep saying the only reason I'm taking anything Cumming has claimed seriously is purely for the sake of argument on the narrow legal point, because some people are arguing that in narrow legal terms he didn't break the law.
As for the rights and wrongs, I don't believe a word of his story, and I don't believe he was concerned about his child, his parents, his sister or anyone else who might have been infected as a result of what he did.
This isn't something the government can put behind it and downgrade to tomorrow's fish and chip paper. As with the Poll Tax, car crashes that go on and on are the most damaging.
Just sayin'
And in fact it's not Cummings either. It's Johnson.
A man with zero integrity, a pathological liar, devoid of any sense of duty to anything higher than his own tacky, entitled self.
That such a person is PM of this country (to me) demeans us all.
HATE the fucker.
It demeans you and in this climate admitting you want to harm someone due to hate is really unacceptable
If there was no legal case to move the child then the mothers movement is moot since the whole scenario was illegal.
Worst case is he drives up to Durham with the kid, drops him off and returns pronto to look after wife. Wouldn't be away long and can probably arrange someone to care for her in his absence. Much better though to arrange for kid to be collected, or delivered by friend/relative/or hired hand if need be. No need to to abandon wife even for a moment then.
I'm just trying to assess the plausibilty of the Cummings story, and finding it less and less so as time goes by (and neither he nor the Government seem inclined to fill in the gaps.)
Against that, always keep tight hold of nurse! Boris and Cummings are right on the need for investment and to oppose austerity, so from that point of view, I'd rather have them in place than someone like, say, George Osborne who thought he could cut his way to growth. Betting-wise, I've backed both sides for a profit so will cop either way next week.
Most Anglican church goers tend to be Tory though which creates a discrepancy which is not there in the Catholic church for example, where most of the clergy and congregation are Labour or the evangelical church where most ministers and the congregation are conservative (albeit the Pentecostal church is more Labour)
The scenario was he took the kid and stayed with the kid but moved the family to be near childcare. Now if moving the child (and staying with the child) is legal then why shouldn't the mother go? Either the family moves or they don't but it's one family unit either way.
Plus returning would of course be double the mileage and may require refueling which a one way trip might not.