The Durham police's ambiguity on the Cummings saga probably doesn't help Boris - smacks of the authorities giving leeway to the high and mighty which they'd never entertain if the culprit was a peasant. Cummings is very much a shrunken figure now in Last Chance Saloon. Surely even Boris wouldn't be stupid enough to keep him on if there are any more debacles like this.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
All the regulations were brought in very quickly, and are likely full of little holes- And not sure if it's correct, but I saw a headline suggesting the guidance Cummings relied on was added after to protect at risk kids after lobbying from charities.
So, the police had some rules which allowed them to "police" up to a point, but were never likely to stand up to close scrutiny. That's fine, as most people bought in to the seriousness of the situation. Ironic that one of the architects of the rules would be stretching them to their limits.
185 new deaths in England, last 3 days, 19 / 73 / 29. Not great numbers really. Bit larger than usual back dating due to bank holiday in there, but I think we have hit a plateau.
The Durham police's ambiguity on the Cummings saga probably doesn't help Boris - smacks of the authorities giving leeway to the high and mighty which they'd never entertain if the culprit was a peasant. Cummings is very much a shrunken figure now in Last Chance Saloon. Surely even Boris wouldn't be stupid enough to keep him on if there are any more debacles like this.
The only thing we do know for certain is that the "Barnard Castle Eye Test" won't be the last act of politically catastrophic arrogance from Scummings.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
185 new deaths in England, last 3 days, 19 / 73 / 29. Not great numbers really. Bit larger than usual back dating due to bank holiday in there, but I think we have hit a plateau.
Do you not find the wild variation of the figures with the day of the week, combined with the effect of bank holidays, makes the daily figures almost impossible to interpret sensibly?
185 new deaths in England, last 3 days, 19 / 73 / 29. Not great numbers really. Bit larger than usual back dating due to bank holiday in there, but I think we have hit a plateau.
Do you not find the wild variation of the figures with the day of the week, combined with the effect of bank holidays, makes the daily figures almost impossible to interpret sensibly?
Not when you look at actual day of deaths and as part of the overall trends. The trend over the past week has looked pretty flat, and this is another data point which I think backs this up.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
On point three, wouldn't an offence have been committed in the Durham jurisdiction for the return leg?
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
All the regulations were brought in very quickly, and are likely full of little holes- And not sure if it's correct, but I saw a headline suggesting the guidance Cummings relied on was added after to protect at risk kids after lobbying from charities.
So, the police had some rules which allowed them to "police" up to a point, but were never likely to stand up to close scrutiny. That's fine, as most people bought in to the seriousness of the situation. Ironic that one of the architects of the rules would be stretching them to their limits.
You seem to be saying that the police decided he hadn't breached the regulations because they were so sloppily drawn up. That seems a little unfair as he himself had (presumably) been involved in drawing them up!
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.
And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.
No they didn't, see their statement.
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.
That's just sheer invention.
This is what they really said about Barnard Castle: "Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. "In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
On point three, wouldn't an offence have been committed in the Durham jurisdiction for the return leg?
For the wife and child, I suppose so. For Cummings, it was supposedly a journey to work?
Really, it is difficult to take such a pack of lies seriously.
Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.
I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.
This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.
I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.
What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.
The next four years will show why Cummings is an asset.
The assassins have failed.
There will be concern now in the BBC. The wider media. And especially in the Civil Service. After all, Cummings had the temerity to unravel the nice little stitch-up of a two year Brexit extension with Brussels, done whilst Boris was out the loop in hospital.
There's going to be quite a reckoning for that. Because Cummings is now bomb-proof.
Its amazing that people actually think in such a way. The UK falling out of the Single Market and every single trading agreement it currently has, on 1 January 2021 is going to lead to massively undermine the UK's economy at exactly the moment it is at it weakness.
When the UK continues to struggle without trade agreements and a crippled economy incapable of regrowing itself there will be plenty of people pointing to "damaged goods" Cummings and the interestingly shaped sock-puppet he operates as the causes of it.
This was inevitable; there is no cunning plan or something around the corner, there is only Brexit and then see what comes up. The thing that is coming up? The ground and fast.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
All the regulations were brought in very quickly, and are likely full of little holes- And not sure if it's correct, but I saw a headline suggesting the guidance Cummings relied on was added after to protect at risk kids after lobbying from charities.
So, the police had some rules which allowed them to "police" up to a point, but were never likely to stand up to close scrutiny. That's fine, as most people bought in to the seriousness of the situation. Ironic that one of the architects of the rules would be stretching them to their limits.
Yes, that's about right.
I don't for one moment believe any of Cummings' story. He left London because it was a virus hot spot and he wanted to get himself and his family to a safer and more congenial spot. But I can see the reasons he gave were sufficiently plausible to deter any sensible plod from trying to prosecute.
I don't envisage too many people trying to wiggle through that kind of loophole though.
As for the Castle fantasy, I think the plod have called this right. He was clearly lying, but in the circumstances they are happy enough to leave it there. Again, I don't think too many others would be trying that one on, so as far they are concerned, no harm done.
Of course great harm has been done to the reputations of DC and the PM, not to mention the credibility of the lockdown strategy, but that a different gether altothing.
The Durham police's ambiguity on the Cummings saga probably doesn't help Boris - smacks of the authorities giving leeway to the high and mighty which they'd never entertain if the culprit was a peasant. Cummings is very much a shrunken figure now in Last Chance Saloon. Surely even Boris wouldn't be stupid enough to keep him on if there are any more debacles like this.
The only thing we do know for certain is that the "Barnard Castle Eye Test" won't be the last act of politically catastrophic arrogance from Scummings.
That's probably why so many Tory MPs are jittery. They realize that if Cummings can behave with such a blend of myopic hubris and soaring idiocy during the greatest health crisis in decades, then who knows what else he's capable of. The guy's a serious time bomb. Why some Tories on here a so delighted that he's sticking around is a mystery. I'd be absolutely cr*pping myself if I were them.
Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?
Sort of.
In the full context of he felt like it was a good idea to drive to see if he was up to the pressures of driving then yes I do. I've done similar before. I think a half hour trip is a great idea before a cross country drive if you have any concerns and I've done that before.
On the out of context word of "eyesight" and an eyesight discussion alone? No.
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.
And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.
No they didn't, see their statement.
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.
Why would they have turned him back and warned him about the dangers of travelling if it wasnt a breach?
They don't say they would have. They say the "likely" would have, ie it depends upon the further conversation that they never had.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Brexit is one thing. The pandemic and the massive depression to follow is another. Who knows what the key driver is any more or how interlinked they are.
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.
And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.
No they didn't, see their statement.
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.
That's just sheer invention.
This is what they really said about Barnard Castle: "Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. "In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"
No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.
185 new deaths in England, last 3 days, 19 / 73 / 29. Not great numbers really. Bit larger than usual back dating due to bank holiday in there, but I think we have hit a plateau.
Do you not find the wild variation of the figures with the day of the week, combined with the effect of bank holidays, makes the daily figures almost impossible to interpret sensibly?
Indeed. I always wait (in Scotland) for the weekly NRS figures, as shown on Travelling Tabby.
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.
And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.
No they didn't, see their statement.
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.
That's just sheer invention.
This is what they really said about Barnard Castle: "Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. "In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"
No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.
And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.
No they didn't, see their statement.
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.
That's just sheer invention.
This is what they really said about Barnard Castle: "Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. "In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"
No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.
Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?
Sort of.
In the full context of he felt like it was a good idea to drive to see if he was up to the pressures of driving then yes I do. I've done similar before. I think a half hour trip is a great idea before a cross country drive if you have any concerns and I've done that before.
On the out of context word of "eyesight" and an eyesight discussion alone? No.
Does that make sense?
If it had been say Corbyn who had said it, would that have made any difference?
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.
And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.
No they didn't, see their statement.
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.
Why would they have turned him back and warned him about the dangers of travelling if it wasnt a breach?
They don't say they would have. They say the "likely" would have, ie it depends upon the further conversation that they never had.
It depends on if he refused to accept the police advice if it had been given
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Just for accuracy. It was not his second home
Apparently he did own it in conjunction with someone else
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????
Will people please stop LYING.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Just for accuracy. It was not his second home
Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier: "It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."
Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.
If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!
I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!
Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.
I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.
This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.
I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.
What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.
The next four years will show why Cummings is an asset.
The assassins have failed.
There will be concern now in the BBC. The wider media. And especially in the Civil Service. After all, Cummings had the temerity to unravel the nice little stitch-up of a two year Brexit extension with Brussels, done whilst Boris was out the loop in hospital.
There's going to be quite a reckoning for that. Because Cummings is now bomb-proof.
Its amazing that people actually think in such a way. The UK falling out of the Single Market and every single trading agreement it currently has, on 1 January 2021 is going to lead to massively undermine the UK's economy at exactly the moment it is at it weakness.
When the UK continues to struggle without trade agreements and a crippled economy incapable of regrowing itself there will be plenty of people pointing to "damaged goods" Cummings and the interestingly shaped sock-puppet he operates as the causes of it.
This was inevitable; there is no cunning plan or something around the corner, there is only Brexit and then see what comes up. The thing that is coming up? The ground and fast.
For what they want to do to the British economy, they need it to be as weak as possible.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.
There is a strong priviso here and a downside:
Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.
Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.
Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.
Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?
Sort of.
In the full context of he felt like it was a good idea to drive to see if he was up to the pressures of driving then yes I do. I've done similar before. I think a half hour trip is a great idea before a cross country drive if you have any concerns and I've done that before.
On the out of context word of "eyesight" and an eyesight discussion alone? No.
Later today the prime minister will set out what lockdown restrictions will be eased from 1 June.
Boris Johnson's spokesman said the government's scientific advisory group, known as Sage, was meeting later today and the prime minister would set out what will be allowed, subject to their advice.
The spokesman said there was no special Cobra meeting today to approve the easing of lockdown measures.
I assume there will be a nice big dead cat of a relaxation to move the story on from Cummings. Pubs open by ... ? Or you can meet your mates in their gardens by ... (i.e. like Scotland just announced)?
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????
Will people please stop LYING.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
Do you know what we call things that are 'not a breach of the law'?
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????
Will people please stop LYING.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
Im confused, the police saying that no breach of the law was committed is not the same as them saying that the trip was fine in their eyes?
185 new deaths in England, last 3 days, 19 / 73 / 29. Not great numbers really. Bit larger than usual back dating due to bank holiday in there, but I think we have hit a plateau.
Do you not find the wild variation of the figures with the day of the week, combined with the effect of bank holidays, makes the daily figures almost impossible to interpret sensibly?
As ever, it is the rolling average that makes sense of the data - lots of backfilling for the bank holiday weekend.
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.
And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.
No they didn't, see their statement.
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.
That's just sheer invention.
This is what they really said about Barnard Castle: "Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. "In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"
No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
Well, the plod did say Mr C broke the regulations, see the Secret Barrister tweet.
And I don't then understyand why the same plod were/are fining folk for driving up to Co Durham.
No they didn't, see their statement.
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.
That's just sheer invention.
This is what they really said about Barnard Castle: "Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. "In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
That matches what I said. These are the key words "the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts" . . . the officers haven't spoken to him, haven't established the facts, which is why the word that follows is "likely"
No. What you wrote was your interpretation. The statement didn't say any of what you claimed.
The difference between opinion and fact.
It does say that.
You can say it till you're blue in the face, but it won't make it true.
Here's what you said: "They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way."
Here's what the police really said: "Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken. "In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
So did I. It was such a pleasant relief. And those books were about fighting on the Western Front, drowning in the Passchendaele mud, or in your own lungs from gas, or burning in a flaming Sopwith Camel, and so on!!!
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.
There is a strong priviso here and a downside:
Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.
Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.
Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.
There is a strong priviso here and a downside:
Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.
Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.
Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????
Will people please stop LYING.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
Durham is not open to debate now but Barnard Castle is explained that any charge would have followed if the police had stopped him and given advice and then he did not follow that advice
To any fair minded person the detailed police statement should end the matter, and some journalists need to be careful about their tweets and comments, as some posters
It does not alter my opinion that Cummings and Boris have damaged their government and Cummings should have gone, but the agenda seems to have moved on
Im confused, the police saying that no breach of the law was committed is not the same as them saying that the trip was fine in their eyes?
Something can be perfectly legal, but still a bloody stupid thing to do. The police statement on the trip to Durham opines on the former, not the latter.
Breaking the guidelines is not necessarily a criminal offence. That doesn’t make it right.
I continue to be vaguely amazed at the depth of the hole the government dug itself here, when a simple "sorry" on Friday would have knocked the entire story on the head.
Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?
Sort of.
In the full context of he felt like it was a good idea to drive to see if he was up to the pressures of driving then yes I do. I've done similar before. I think a half hour trip is a great idea before a cross country drive if you have any concerns and I've done that before.
On the out of context word of "eyesight" and an eyesight discussion alone? No.
Does that make sense?
If it had been say Corbyn who had said it, would that have made any difference?
No. As I said I've done it myself and always considered it a good idea so to criticise Corbyn for what I think is a good idea would make me a flaming hypocrite.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Just for accuracy. It was not his second home
Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier: "It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."
Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.
If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!
I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!
With respect the police statement is comprehensive and it really does not matter what you believe unless you want to take on the police statement
As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned
Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.
I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.
This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.
I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.
What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.
The next four years will show why Cummings is an asset.
The assassins have failed.
There will be concern now in the BBC. The wider media. And especially in the Civil Service. After all, Cummings had the temerity to unravel the nice little stitch-up of a two year Brexit extension with Brussels, done whilst Boris was out the loop in hospital.
There's going to be quite a reckoning for that. Because Cummings is now bomb-proof.
Its amazing that people actually think in such a way. The UK falling out of the Single Market and every single trading agreement it currently has, on 1 January 2021 is going to lead to massively undermine the UK's economy at exactly the moment it is at it weakness.
When the UK continues to struggle without trade agreements and a crippled economy incapable of regrowing itself there will be plenty of people pointing to "damaged goods" Cummings and the interestingly shaped sock-puppet he operates as the causes of it.
This was inevitable; there is no cunning plan or something around the corner, there is only Brexit and then see what comes up. The thing that is coming up? The ground and fast.
For what they want to do to the British economy, they need it to be as weak as possible.
But I don't see it like that: there is no cunning plan here. The idea that Cummings and the government he runs can realistically bomb the economy back to the stone age and start again with a pure Chicago school ideology doesn't fit with the populist anti-austerity messaging.
There is no political will for a major restructuring of the UK economy: there would be mass unrest if it was attempted and restructure to what anyway? The UK's Labour costs are too high and changing the infrastructure into a high tech post-industrial society would be close to impossible.
They're just chancers: having a blog with formulas in it doesn't mean you have a great vision for the country, Cummings may have opinions on how the UK works at the moment but a clear, consistent and most importantly achievable plan to change it for the better and in a way that doesn't cause mass unrest, he doesn't have. Nothing that has been said so far indicates it either.
At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.
You were laughed at for swallowing the Cummings story hook line & sinker.
The Cummings story is the truth unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which there isn't.
My default assumption is not to say everyone is lying just because its politically convenient to call them liars.
OK. So you will believe any old cock & bull that anybody spins unless you have access to firm and incontrovertible evidence that it is untrue.
I therefore must class you as a "vulnerable person" and will take this into account in future dealings. I am no exploiter.
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?
There's a difference between whether this was a criminal act and how it appears to the 50m+ people who have been following the rules. The one beneficiary of Cummings still keeping his job is Starmer.
Nearly.
The two beneficiaries of Cummings still keeping his job are Sturgeon and Starmer.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.
There is a strong priviso here and a downside:
Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.
Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.
Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.
Piffle. We don't know what the FTA will be, twixt UK and EU. No one does. Nor does Nissan. Maybe there won't be a FTA. Or maybe there will and Nissan will be able to export freely. If there is a significant barrier to trade they will do what you say, and focus on the UK (and maybe export to other, non EU markets, from Sunderland)
The fact is there are so many variables, at such a fluid time, every move is a bet. And Nissan have just bet on the UK. That's it.
Its a hedge not a bet.
The segregation of the model reflects the expectations of trade barriers but also demonstrates that Nissan will make a go of what it already has in the UK.
That's what most multinationals would do in any restructure anyway.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.
There is a strong priviso here and a downside:
Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.
Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.
Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.
Are you suggesting these cars will not be exported as well.
And Airbus have confirmed continuing wing manufacture in the UK
At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
I'd be interested to know what you think about any impact SKS might have, albeit with the current SLAB lot mediating his message; and whether the SCUP might actually go indy to escape Mr Johnson's taint.
At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
The main concern for the SNP of course is Starmer's high rating with Scots if that leads to SNP voters returning to Scottish Labour.
Independence of course is off the menu for the rest of this parliament, the Tory manifesto ruled out indyref2 for a generation and the actions of China today in effectively banning any Hong Kong autonomy and Spain in Catalonia means Boris looks relatively reasonable when he bans indyref2
At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
Yep, some Scottish Tories get it (though it could be said the ones visibly crapping themselves and spouting ever more virulent guff also get it).
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.
There is a strong priviso here and a downside:
Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.
Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.
Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.
Are you suggesting these cars will not be exported as well.
And Airbus have confirmed continuing wing manufacture in the UK
That's my understanding from the FT articles I've read to date on the matter: their plan is to try and steal market share in the UK as it recedes from Audi, VW and so on. It seems a reasonable approach to me.
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????
Will people please stop LYING.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
Do you know what we call things that are 'not a breach of the law'?
The Durham police's ambiguity on the Cummings saga probably doesn't help Boris - smacks of the authorities giving leeway to the high and mighty which they'd never entertain if the culprit was a peasant. Cummings is very much a shrunken figure now in Last Chance Saloon. Surely even Boris wouldn't be stupid enough to keep him on if there are any more debacles like this.
Johnson’s stupidity is limitless. As a lot of Conservatives tried to point out prior to him being elected leader.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Just for accuracy. It was not his second home
Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier: "It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."
Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.
If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!
I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!
With respect the police statement is comprehensive and it really does not matter what you believe unless you want to take on the police statement
As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned
The question of what 'to move house' means (Regs 6(l)) is interesting but safest to say it means exactly what it seems to mean in common sense - to go to live from one home of any sort to another home of any sort. Subject to any exemptions - like for holidays.
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????
Will people please stop LYING.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
Durham is not open to debate now but Barnard Castle is explained that any charge would have followed if the police had stopped him and given advice and then he did not follow that advice
For heaven's sake let's not forget that the narrow legal issue was only ever a small part of this.
Regardless of the legalities, the worst thing that Cummings did was to drive his symptomatic wife to the other end of the country - at a time when he was almost certainly almost infectious himself - when the whole family should have been self-isolating.
In terms of endangering others, I think the trips to and from the hospital in Durham were worse than the Barnard Castle trip. Though there must have been a fair likelihood - knowing what we do about the virus - that Cummings was still infectious when he went to Barnard Castle.
None of that falls within the remit of the police, because the advice about self-isolation has no legal force. Perhaps it should. It does in other countries.
Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?
Sort of.
In the full context of he felt like it was a good idea to drive to see if he was up to the pressures of driving then yes I do. I've done similar before. I think a half hour trip is a great idea before a cross country drive if you have any concerns and I've done that before.
On the out of context word of "eyesight" and an eyesight discussion alone? No.
Does that make sense?
Pure comedy gold. Again.
You, mr will no one think of the children, have in the past worried that your eyesight is not up to driving so you have shouted over to Mrs T: come on luv grab the kids we're going for a drive.
Shades of Nick Griffin and his pigs. I'm sure the 'political correctness gone mad, he's only havin' a laff' merchants will be along shortly.
And Alan Clark with his dog called Eva Braun
This isn't entirely a rightwing thing, a lot of it is posh people being outrageous, pour epater les bourgeois, to show how posh they really are; ie, they can get away with it
I'd imagine that the segment of posh people who are left wing is relatively small, let alone the left wing segment that indulges in racist and Nazi luvvin memes when naming their animals.
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????
Will people please stop LYING.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
Im confused, the police saying that no breach of the law was committed is not the same as them saying that the trip was fine in their eyes?
OK - if you're confused rather than lying, that is a different matter.
Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.
I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.
This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.
I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.
What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.
The next four years will show why Cummings is an asset.
The assassins have failed.
There will be concern now in the BBC. The wider media. And especially in the Civil Service. After all, Cummings had the temerity to unravel the nice little stitch-up of a two year Brexit extension with Brussels, done whilst Boris was out the loop in hospital.
There's going to be quite a reckoning for that. Because Cummings is now bomb-proof.
Its amazing that people actually think in such a way. The UK falling out of the Single Market and every single trading agreement it currently has, on 1 January 2021 is going to lead to massively undermine the UK's economy at exactly the moment it is at it weakness.
When the UK continues to struggle without trade agreements and a crippled economy incapable of regrowing itself there will be plenty of people pointing to "damaged goods" Cummings and the interestingly shaped sock-puppet he operates as the causes of it.
This was inevitable; there is no cunning plan or something around the corner, there is only Brexit and then see what comes up. The thing that is coming up? The ground and fast.
For what they want to do to the British economy, they need it to be as weak as possible.
But I don't see it like that: there is no cunning plan here. The idea that Cummings and the government he runs can realistically bomb the economy back to the stone age and start again with a pure Chicago school ideology doesn't fit with the populist anti-austerity messaging.
There is no political will for a major restructuring of the UK economy: there would be mass unrest if it was attempted and restructure to what anyway? The UK's Labour costs are too high and changing the infrastructure into a high tech post-industrial society would be close to impossible.
They're just chancers: having a blog with formulas in it doesn't mean you have a great vision for the country, Cummings may have opinions on how the UK works at the moment but a clear, consistent and most importantly achievable plan to change it for the better and in a way that doesn't cause mass unrest, he doesn't have. Nothing that has been said so far indicates it either.
One has to hope that they're just idiots, but I suspect there's more too it than that. Bear in mind that they can present a lot of their plans as a solution to the problems that arise when they tank the economy. US free trade deal? Cheap food! Bonfire of rules and regulations? To get the economy going! Slash government spending? So we can cut taxes, and we can't afford the spending with the economy tanked! Northern voters angry? Remember we kicked out the immigrants! Cummings isn't a Tory and he won't care if they don't win the next election. How much of Thatcher's reforms did Blair unravel? Not much. Job done.
At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
I'd be interested to know what you think about any impact SKS might have, albeit with the current SLAB lot mediating his message; and whether the SCUP might actually go indy to escape Mr Johnson's taint.
Any SCUAP “independence” will be superficial at best and non-existent at worst. Please remember that prior to their bizarre suicide in 1965, the nominally independent Unionist MP’s took the English Conservative whip, and some served in Tory cabinets.
Starmer will have a very positive impact on SLab votes. Probably not much next year (although I’m expecting a modest upswing in SLab votes and MSP numbers next year, for a variety of reasons, not just Starmer), but definitely in the council elections of 2022, and at the next UK GE in 2024, if Scotland is still a member of the Union by then.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Nissan's UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Its actually because of Brexit, Nissan have said before that they want to become a major player in the UK market becasue they expect reduced sales of European cars into the UK after the imposition of tarrifs. Renault of course will cover the European market but is firmly in control of the trio of companies in the group.
There is a strong priviso here and a downside:
Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.
Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.
Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.
Piffle. We don't know what the FTA will be, twixt UK and EU. No one does. Nor does Nissan. Maybe there won't be a FTA. Or maybe there will and Nissan will be able to export freely. If there is a significant barrier to trade they will do what you say, and focus on the UK (and maybe export to other, non EU markets, from Sunderland)
The fact is there are so many variables, at such a fluid time, every move is a bet. And Nissan have just bet on the UK. That's it.
Its a hedge not a bet.
The segregation of the model reflects the expectations of trade barriers but also demonstrates that Nissan will make a go of what it already has in the UK.
That's what most multinationals would do in any restructure anyway.
It’s what a number of multi nationals have done since the leave vote, segment their UK business from the European activities relocate corporate HQs and get on with it.
Shades of Nick Griffin and his pigs. I'm sure the 'political correctness gone mad, he's only havin' a laff' merchants will be along shortly.
And Alan Clark with his dog called Eva Braun
This isn't entirely a rightwing thing, a lot of it is posh people being outrageous, pour epater les bourgeois, to show how posh they really are; ie, they can get away with it
I'd imagine that the segment of posh people who are left wing is relatively small, let alone the segment that indulges in racist and Nazi luvvin memes when naming their animals.
Apart from Seumas Milne, that is.
And plenty of others. Who else can afford to be a full time left wing agitator?
My ex-flatmate was nth in line to the throne and was a very committed member of the RCP.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Just for accuracy. It was not his second home
Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier: "It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."
Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.
If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!
I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!
With respect the police statement is comprehensive and it really does not matter what you believe unless you want to take on the police statement
As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned
The question of what 'to move house' means (Regs 6(l)) is interesting but safest to say it means exactly what it seems to mean in common sense - to go to live from one home of any sort to another home of any sort. Subject to any exemptions - like for holidays.
Perhaps the point is academic, as the "moving house" provision in the regulations is qualified by "where reasonably necessary".
But it's very difficult to believe the government would have deliberately inserted a provision in the regulations allowing people to travel to holiday homes, while telling people they shouldn't do that. But with this government, anything is possible.
....... surely no one on either side who cares about their country wants another Theresa May style premiership - a government without purpose, direction, decisiveness, leadership, a backbone and the ability to get anything through parliament.
Well, that is what we have now, isn´t it? Except that they can ram anything they like through Parliament.
At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
Yep, some Scottish Tories get it (though it could be said the ones visibly crapping themselves and spouting ever more virulent guff also get it).
Nicola looked quite scared today, and indeed admitted as much, as she released some of the lockdown rules. She is a clever politician who knows that lockdown is easy, and indeed popular, in a risk averse population but of course the problems for her going forward are the same for Boris.
Containing the virus as we come out of lockdown, success of track and trace, and how she is able to deal with the economic armageddon coming the way of Scotland and of course England
To be fair to her she does recognise that she could well have serious problems with Nikes Edinburgh conference and the kilt makers which was Scotlands ground zero and in February
I do not think for one minute Nicola will be seeking Indy 2 at this moment of real crisis and I hope she fends off the imminent civil war comming from Salmond and his group
At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
I'd be interested to know what you think about any impact SKS might have, albeit with the current SLAB lot mediating his message; and whether the SCUP might actually go indy to escape Mr Johnson's taint.
Any SCUAP “independence” will be superficial at best and non-existent at worst. Please remember that prior to their bizarre suicide in 1965, the nominally independent Unionist MP’s took the English Conservative whip, and some served in Tory cabinets.
Starmer will have a very positive impact on SLab votes. Probably not much next year (although I’m expecting a modest upswing in SLab votes and MSP numbers next year, for a variety of reasons, not just Starmer), but definitely in the council elections of 2022, and at the next UK GE in 2024, if Scotland is still a member of the Union by then.
Thank you. SCUP 'Independent' in the Scottish rural local councillor sense, then.
Shades of Nick Griffin and his pigs. I'm sure the 'political correctness gone mad, he's only havin' a laff' merchants will be along shortly.
And Alan Clark with his dog called Eva Braun
This isn't entirely a rightwing thing, a lot of it is posh people being outrageous, pour epater les bourgeois, to show how posh they really are; ie, they can get away with it
I'd imagine that the segment of posh people who are left wing is relatively small, let alone the segment that indulges in racist and Nazi luvvin memes when naming their animals.
Apart from Seumas Milne, that is.
And plenty of others. Who else can afford to be a full time left wing agitator?
My ex-flatmate was nth in line to the throne and was a very committed member of the RCP.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Just for accuracy. It was not his second home
Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier: "It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."
Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.
If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!
I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!
With respect the police statement is comprehensive and it really does not matter what you believe unless you want to take on the police statement
As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned
The question of what 'to move house' means (Regs 6(l)) is interesting but safest to say it means exactly what it seems to mean in common sense - to go to live from one home of any sort to another home of any sort. Subject to any exemptions - like for holidays.
They also said that they would have likely asked him to return home which suggests they deemed it a violation of the regs and not the law (at which point of course a failure to obey the instruction to return home would have been an actual offence).
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
On point three, wouldn't an offence have been committed in the Durham jurisdiction for the return leg?
Probably not because it was a journey for the purposes of work; and the second house move, back to London, was also reasonably necessary for the same reason. (PS I am not trying to defend DC. I broadly agree with David Allen Green's approach, which is worth looking at on Twitter or FT).
Shades of Nick Griffin and his pigs. I'm sure the 'political correctness gone mad, he's only havin' a laff' merchants will be along shortly.
And Alan Clark with his dog called Eva Braun
This isn't entirely a rightwing thing, a lot of it is posh people being outrageous, pour epater les bourgeois, to show how posh they really are; ie, they can get away with it
I'd imagine that the segment of posh people who are left wing is relatively small, let alone the segment that indulges in racist and Nazi luvvin memes when naming their animals.
Apart from Seumas Milne, that is.
And plenty of others. Who else can afford to be a full time left wing agitator?
My ex-flatmate was nth in line to the throne and was a very committed member of the RCP.
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????
Will people please stop LYING.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
Do you know what we call things that are 'not a breach of the law'?
We call them LEGAL
Exactly.
As opposed to FINE.
Nice to see you backing me up today.
Actually I wanted to support you a second time today. Since you said on the previous thread:
'I change my mind sometimes based on here. In particular, if somebody who is in my Bad Books says they like something that I happen to also like, I will if at all possible stop liking it. This has happened on numerous occasions.'
I thought this would be an excellent time to come out with my deep and abiding love of Sir Keir, Labour, and the abolition of private schools. I am all in for that that stuff
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Just for accuracy. It was not his second home
Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier: "It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."
Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.
If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!
I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!
With respect the police statement is comprehensive and it really does not matter what you believe unless you want to take on the police statement
As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned
The question of what 'to move house' means (Regs 6(l)) is interesting but safest to say it means exactly what it seems to mean in common sense - to go to live from one home of any sort to another home of any sort. Subject to any exemptions - like for holidays.
They also said that they would have likely asked him to return home which suggests they deemed it a violation of the regs and not the law (at which point of course a failure to obey the instruction to return home would have been an actual offence).
The Regulations absolutely are the law. It's the guidance, advice and rhetoric which are not.
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.
Thank you for a sensible answer.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
Just for accuracy. It was not his second home
Please try to keep up. Apparently it is claimed that it was his second home. DougSeal posted a bit earlier: "It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."
Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.
If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!
I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!
With respect the police statement is comprehensive and it really does not matter what you believe unless you want to take on the police statement
As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned
The question of what 'to move house' means (Regs 6(l)) is interesting but safest to say it means exactly what it seems to mean in common sense - to go to live from one home of any sort to another home of any sort. Subject to any exemptions - like for holidays.
They also said that they would have likely asked him to return home which suggests they deemed it a violation of the regs and not the law (at which point of course a failure to obey the instruction to return home would have been an actual offence).
The Regulations absolutely are the law. It's the guidance, advice and rhetoric which are not.
At the start of lockdown Sturgeon’s SNP had poll leads of up to 14% – now the latest two surveys have that up at 25%.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
The main concern for the SNP of course is Starmer's high rating with Scots if that leads to SNP voters returning to Scottish Labour.
Independence of course is off the menu for the rest of this parliament, the Tory manifesto ruled out indyref2 for a generation and the actions of China today in effectively banning any Hong Kong autonomy and Spain in Catalonia means Boris looks relatively reasonable when he bans indyref2
Ah yes, Beijing and Madrid, those great beacons of liberty and democracy so admired by The Herd.
As for Starmer, I’m a big fan and always have been. As I’ve said many times before, if we are to successfully dissolve the Union to the mutual benefit of all the peoples of these islands, then we need mature, competent, compassionate and intelligent leaders of all the principal parties. Starmer is the best leader Labour have had in decades, and I warmly welcome him.
I’m not sure that I’d call his +5 to +10 among Scots voters “high ratings”, but that is a mere quibble. Some SNP voters might lend a vote to Starmer, but come IndyRef2 they’ll still be Yes.
Comments
So, the police had some rules which allowed them to "police" up to a point, but were never likely to stand up to close scrutiny. That's fine, as most people bought in to the seriousness of the situation. Ironic that one of the architects of the rules would be stretching them to their limits.
And still no app for another month.
But do you really think the reference in the regulations to "moving house" would cover travelling to a second home? I can't believe that.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265985660898459655?s=20
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1265987790237511685?s=20
And the answer has become abundantly clear. Never.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52829348
Is this a despite Brexit? or because of it?
Really, it is difficult to take such a pack of lies seriously.
When the UK continues to struggle without trade agreements and a crippled economy incapable of regrowing itself there will be plenty of people pointing to "damaged goods" Cummings and the interestingly shaped sock-puppet he operates as the causes of it.
This was inevitable; there is no cunning plan or something around the corner, there is only Brexit and then see what comes up. The thing that is coming up? The ground and fast.
I don't for one moment believe any of Cummings' story. He left London because it was a virus hot spot and he wanted to get himself and his family to a safer and more congenial spot. But I can see the reasons he gave were sufficiently plausible to deter any sensible plod from trying to prosecute.
I don't envisage too many people trying to wiggle through that kind of loophole though.
As for the Castle fantasy, I think the plod have called this right. He was clearly lying, but in the circumstances they are happy enough to leave it there. Again, I don't think too many others would be trying that one on, so as far they are concerned, no harm done.
Of course great harm has been done to the reputations of DC and the PM, not to mention the credibility of the lockdown strategy, but that a different gether altothing.
In the full context of he felt like it was a good idea to drive to see if he was up to the pressures of driving then yes I do. I've done similar before. I think a half hour trip is a great idea before a cross country drive if you have any concerns and I've done that before.
On the out of context word of "eyesight" and an eyesight discussion alone? No.
Does that make sense?
I mean its great news and all, but even as a staunch Brexiter I find it a bit puzzling, given it is outside the EU now.
I always hoped they would keep producing in Sunderland but to chose it as a hub and close Barcelona? seems strange.
The difference between opinion and fact.
Hold on, surely that was committed outside Durham Plod terrain - ie in the Met Pol area, or wherever they met up.
The police did NOT say the trip to Durham was fine. They said it was not a breach of the law. It was still prima facie a breach of the guidelines - presented by the government as instructions.
"It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home."
Please also note that I don't believe a word of these multitudinous contradictory excuses that have been put forward on Cummings's behalf.
If I say "would the regulations really justify X", don't imagine for a moment that I accept that X was really the situation. Only that someone or other trying to defend Cummings has said that X was the situation!
I am still sceptical about whether this "cottage" even exists!
There is a strong priviso here and a downside:
Provisio: everyone in the UK switches from Euopean cars to Nissans; this is vital as the plant will have far excess capacity as it will only be for the UK market. If the demand in the UK isn't met and thanks again to the tarrif barriers the plant's future will be back in jeapordy as Renault is covering the European market.
Downside: having a UK plant manufacturing cars for the UK market alone does nothing to help the UK's already terrible balance of payments.
Essentially the focus of the group is Nissan in the UK without any connections to the wider manufacturing enterprise. Clearly they want to retain the sunk cost of the factory but they have also segregated should it need lopping off if there is not sufficient take-up of Nissan cars in the UK.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1265999786181885954?s=20
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1265990970862075905
Have a nice day.
Boris Johnson's spokesman said the government's scientific advisory group, known as Sage, was meeting later today and the prime minister would set out what will be allowed, subject to their advice.
The spokesman said there was no special Cobra meeting today to approve the easing of lockdown measures.
I assume there will be a nice big dead cat of a relaxation to move the story on from Cummings. Pubs open by ... ? Or you can meet your mates in their gardens by ... (i.e. like Scotland just announced)?
We call them LEGAL
Here's what you said:
"They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way."
Here's what the police really said:
"Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
"In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
To any fair minded person the detailed police statement should end the matter, and some journalists need to be careful about their tweets and comments, as some posters
It does not alter my opinion that Cummings and Boris have damaged their government and Cummings should have gone, but the agenda seems to have moved on
I'm sure the 'political correctness gone mad, he's only havin' a laff' merchants will be along shortly.
Breaking the guidelines is not necessarily a criminal offence. That doesn’t make it right.
I continue to be vaguely amazed at the depth of the hole the government dug itself here, when a simple "sorry" on Friday would have knocked the entire story on the head.
'I will always want you for my sweetheart
No matter what you do
Oh! Carol, I'm so in love with you'
As far as the ownership of the cottage is concerned I have not seen the previous comment but it has not come into the issue as far as the police are concerned
* England.
There is no political will for a major restructuring of the UK economy: there would be mass unrest if it was attempted and restructure to what anyway? The UK's Labour costs are too high and changing the infrastructure into a high tech post-industrial society would be close to impossible.
They're just chancers: having a blog with formulas in it doesn't mean you have a great vision for the country, Cummings may have opinions on how the UK works at the moment but a clear, consistent and most importantly achievable plan to change it for the better and in a way that doesn't cause mass unrest, he doesn't have. Nothing that has been said so far indicates it either.
At this rate independence might happen quite soon.
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for the SNP which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap larger.
For the SNP the really positive thing has been the improvement in the leader ratings.
The big question is how will this now go? Can BoJo/Dom stop any further erosion or is Sturgeon’s big ratings progress going to be translated into even better voting intention numbers? We don’t know, which is why the Unionist media commission so few Scottish polls.
I therefore must class you as a "vulnerable person" and will take this into account in future dealings. I am no exploiter.
The two beneficiaries of Cummings still keeping his job are Sturgeon and Starmer.
The segregation of the model reflects the expectations of trade barriers but also demonstrates that Nissan will make a go of what it already has in the UK.
That's what most multinationals would do in any restructure anyway.
And Airbus have confirmed continuing wing manufacture in the UK
Classic case of psychological projection.
Independence of course is off the menu for the rest of this parliament, the Tory manifesto ruled out indyref2 for a generation and the actions of China today in effectively banning any Hong Kong autonomy and Spain in Catalonia means Boris looks relatively reasonable when he bans indyref2
https://twitter.com/akmaciver/status/1265980675007680512?s=20
As opposed to FINE.
Nice to see you backing me up today.
Regardless of the legalities, the worst thing that Cummings did was to drive his symptomatic wife to the other end of the country - at a time when he was almost certainly almost infectious himself - when the whole family should have been self-isolating.
In terms of endangering others, I think the trips to and from the hospital in Durham were worse than the Barnard Castle trip. Though there must have been a fair likelihood - knowing what we do about the virus - that Cummings was still infectious when he went to Barnard Castle.
None of that falls within the remit of the police, because the advice about self-isolation has no legal force. Perhaps it should. It does in other countries.
You, mr will no one think of the children, have in the past worried that your eyesight is not up to driving so you have shouted over to Mrs T: come on luv grab the kids we're going for a drive.
You've done that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6QwnzbRUyA
Starmer will have a very positive impact on SLab votes. Probably not much next year (although I’m expecting a modest upswing in SLab votes and MSP numbers next year, for a variety of reasons, not just Starmer), but definitely in the council elections of 2022, and at the next UK GE in 2024, if Scotland is still a member of the Union by then.
And plenty of others. Who else can afford to be a full time left wing agitator?
My ex-flatmate was nth in line to the throne and was a very committed member of the RCP.
But it's very difficult to believe the government would have deliberately inserted a provision in the regulations allowing people to travel to holiday homes, while telling people they shouldn't do that. But with this government, anything is possible.
Containing the virus as we come out of lockdown, success of track and trace, and how she is able to deal with the economic armageddon coming the way of Scotland and of course England
To be fair to her she does recognise that she could well have serious problems with Nikes Edinburgh conference and the kilt makers which was Scotlands ground zero and in February
I do not think for one minute Nicola will be seeking Indy 2 at this moment of real crisis and I hope she fends off the imminent civil war comming from Salmond and his group
And I have no idea how Indy 2 would play out
I hope you accept this is fair and balanced
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-the-uk-australia-canada-and-united-states-on-hong-kong
(PS I am not trying to defend DC. I broadly agree with David Allen Green's approach, which is worth looking at on Twitter or FT).
'I change my mind sometimes based on here. In particular, if somebody who is in my Bad Books says they like something that I happen to also like, I will if at all possible stop liking it. This has happened on numerous occasions.'
I thought this would be an excellent time to come out with my deep and abiding love of Sir Keir, Labour, and the abolition of private schools. I am all in for that that stuff
As for Starmer, I’m a big fan and always have been. As I’ve said many times before, if we are to successfully dissolve the Union to the mutual benefit of all the peoples of these islands, then we need mature, competent, compassionate and intelligent leaders of all the principal parties. Starmer is the best leader Labour have had in decades, and I warmly welcome him.
I’m not sure that I’d call his +5 to +10 among Scots voters “high ratings”, but that is a mere quibble. Some SNP voters might lend a vote to Starmer, but come IndyRef2 they’ll still be Yes.