My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
Yes, that’s my instinctive feeling too Max.
The demographics of London should help us massively, plus the fact that people have been taking a fairly relaxed interpretation of the lockdown guidance.
Certainly, the widespread breaking of the rules down here in the April warm spell has not led to a spike, despite every assurance on here that it would.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
We will soon find out.
And America currently testing this theory on an even bigger scale.
The sheer scale of obesity and poor diet in the US vs London (a slim, fairly healthy-eating city) makes such comparisons largely worthless. London would be better compared to Paris or similar European cities where people are much slimmer and diets are better.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
The govt was doing OK and with general support until Boris apparently decided that Cumming's job was more important than the health of millions of people. That is when the media turned on him...
If he had fired Cummings on the spot, the media would be on Boris's side. This is entirely self-inflicted.
Which is more important: giving maximum coverage to Cummings' personal stupidity or reinforcing the consensus on tackling the virus?
Question to be rephrased slightly and put to the PM -
Which is more important, retaining public trust in the government as it tackles the virus or protecting Dominic Cummings from the consequences of his own behaviour?
Except there is no need - since the question has been answered.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
In all fairness, the scientists seem to make it all up too. Hence’s this morning’s game-changing revelation that the asymptomatic carrier rate is within the range of 5-80%.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
A simple and sincere (sounding) apology would have sufficed.
It might have sufficed for a reasonable person (like your good self perhaps), but for the media? No, they'd have scented blood and wouldn't have stopped until they got their man.
'But by apologizing Mr. Cummings has admitted serious wrongdoing, so surely he must resign, minister?' x 1,000,000...
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Fuck the government (of any shade). They are not owed the unquestioning supplicancy of the media or anyone else no matter what the circumstances.
Well said - that's why the media was given absolute freedom to report whatever they liked in WW2. If thousands more soldiers, sailors, and airmen lost their lives as a result, well, I'm sure they'd have understood that letting the media weigh in with their sniping and slanted guff was of infinitely greater value than their lives...
A lot is still unknown about the virus but the consensus of current researchers is that unlike the Nazis, covid19 can't read.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
The govt was doing OK and with general support until Boris apparently decided that Cumming's job was more important than the health of millions of people. That is when the media turned on him...
If he had fired Cummings on the spot, the media would be on Boris's side. This is entirely self-inflicted.
Oh dear - that's a rather interesting (and telling) rewriting of the actual position
And no, I am no defending Cummings who acted like an utter dick
Those who write the rules must be seen to abide by them, far more than Ordinary Joe. So when one of those at the top ignores the rules and then pays no penalty, what is the message to general population? Look at all the structures of pandemic control that suddenly appear to have been dropped or simply left with no guidance. Rightly or wrongly people are asking the question "Has this been stopped to protect Cummings?". You do not have to look too hard to find such stories or questions.
That extreme left-wing rag The Spectator even raises questions along these lines - that Boris's dependency on Cummings is poisoning the Party internally, so it is not just the Guardian and Socialist Worker pushing this.
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
It is, however, more capable than the Saturn IB rocket, which was the immediate predecessor to the Saturn V. And as the Saturn IB cost, in todays dollars, $336 million per launch and a Falcon 9 will fly for around $50 million per launch, it's quite a lot more sustainable going forwards.
That Saturn V cost about 1.25 billion dollars (in 2019 dollars) per launch; Falcon Heavy goes for between 0.09 and 0.15 billion dollars (and that's not a typo). Of course, that Saturn V launches about twice as much per launch as a Falcon Heavy, but given that you could fly ten to fifteen Falcon Heavies for the price of a single Saturn V, it's more capable overall.
And assuming Starship flies and does anything like has been claimed (and I wouldn't bet against SpaceX on this), it would be far cheaper than even that per launch while being able to loft a similar amount to the Saturn V.
So while I'd fully agree with the disappointing last few decades in space exploration, we genuinely may well be on the verge of a revolutionary change in that.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
The government did not have to fight the media, had its communications been more open and honest. No government in a democracy is entitled to a media which does not challenge it.
The press did repeatedly challenge the government in both world wars. Indeed, Northcliffe believed he had been instrumental in the collapse of Asquith's government (in which he was not altogether correct, although he was certainly important). The shell scandal of 1915 was a press story that forced important, radical changes. In the second world war, there were a very large number of stories about the inadequacy of air raid shelters that led to a whole new construction programme.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
It doesn't spread off of surfaces ultra-easily. My anecdotal evidence for this is that we used the same metal wheelbarrow the day after a sufferer. I was completely fastidious about not touching my face/washing hands but my fianceé definitely did, though didn't fall ill. The time between those interactions would be about 24 hours.
Is that why Japan and Israel have had 95-98% fewer deaths per million population?
Two very different developed countries, both as densely-populated as the UK, both with excellent outcomes.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
You reckon they show up as infected in antigen tests but don't produce any antibodies?
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
Yes, that’s my instinctive feeling too Max.
The demographics of London should help us massively, plus the fact that people have been taking a fairly relaxed interpretation of the lockdown guidance.
Certainly, the widespread breaking of the rules down here in the April warm spell has not led to a spike, despite every assurance on here that it would.
It’s been the dog that did not bark.
I hope you are right.
Me too. I might well not be. It’s just instinct based on some (fairly scant) supportive data.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
Was she responsible for writing the guidelines?
Don't bother. They know the difference between "I wrote the guidelines and broke quarantine" and "I broke lock down". They just don't care.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
A simple and sincere (sounding) apology would have sufficed.
It might have sufficed for a reasonable person (like your good self perhaps), but for the media? No, they'd have scented blood and wouldn't have stopped until they got their man.
'But by apologizing Mr. Cummings has admitted serious wrongdoing, so surely he must resign, minister?' x 1,000,000...
The media are less important than the public. An apology would have satisfied enough people that you would no longer have had a majority thinking he should resign/be sacked, and a substantial majority of Tory voters backing him.
You're making the same mistake the Left makes every time an attack from the Right resonates with the public. It's not all the "biased" media's fault.
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time (2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house (3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes (4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
Well, if you think a thoughtful header along those lines is possible, why don’t you submit one ?
Because I have better things to do with my time. The occasional headers I write tends to be focused on history and constitutional politics
So quit complaining about ‘editorial policy’ when it is no such thing.
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Difference is “arrest for the murder of” is clearly part of the court process.
“Was murdered” is a statement of fact about the situation
So you should not say somebody was murdered until there's a court verdict confirming it?
Didn't the autopsy come back with it being far than certain that he was. Underlying serious health condition and intoxication being the leading causes of death.
Mmm. But I guess he might have lived a little longer without the knee-on-neck treatment.
I am truly staggered that anyone can think this crisis is the media's fault for reporting it rather than Cummings' fault for doing it.
The extremists are worried that if Cummings goes, the govt (Boris) might not implement their Libertarian ideals. Cummings must stay. All costs. Apparently....
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
In all fairness, the scientists seem to make it all up too. Hence’s this morning’s game-changing revelation that the asymptomatic carrier rate is within the range of 5-80%.
Unfortunately much of the criticism of scientists on social media is posted by scientifically illiterate people who have read scientifically illiterate reports in the proper media.
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Difference is “arrest for the murder of” is clearly part of the court process.
“Was murdered” is a statement of fact about the situation
So you should not say somebody was murdered until there's a court verdict confirming it?
Didn't the autopsy come back with it being far than certain that he was. Underlying serious health condition and intoxication being the leading causes of death.
Mmm. But I guess he might have lived a little longer without the knee-on-neck treatment.
I am not defending the officer, i am just saying that the autopsy is part of the reason why he isn't charged with murder, rather the US equivalent of manslaughter.
It why we have autopsy and due process, rather than mob justice and the media should be careful about their reporting.
Lets not forget the massive riots in Ferguson all based on a false story that the media amplified.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
That is a far greater crime than breaking lockdown tbf.
On Coronavirus it seems obvious to me that we should be opening up everything outside that we can so we can make the most of the good weather.
If a vaccine isn't ready for the autumn we have the potential of a difficult winter, with restrictions on crowded indoor places, and these months now will seem to have been wasted.
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
It is, however, more capable than the Saturn IB rocket, which was the immediate predecessor to the Saturn V. And as the Saturn IB cost, in todays dollars, $336 million per launch and a Falcon 9 will fly for around $50 million per launch, it's quite a lot more sustainable going forwards.
That Saturn V cost about 1.25 billion dollars (in 2019 dollars) per launch; Falcon Heavy goes for between 0.09 and 0.15 billion dollars (and that's not a typo). Of course, that Saturn V launches about twice as much per launch as a Falcon Heavy, but given that you could fly ten to fifteen Falcon Heavies for the price of a single Saturn V, it's more capable overall.
And assuming Starship flies and does anything like has been claimed (and I wouldn't bet against SpaceX on this), it would be far cheaper than even that per launch while being able to loft a similar amount to the Saturn V.
So while I'd fully agree with the disappointing last few decades in space exploration, we genuinely may well be on the verge of a revolutionary change in that.
I'm waiting impatiently for Reaction Engines to wheel the sabre engine out of the garage.
The heat exchanger technology they have developed works to Mach V they reckon.
I guess COVID must have slowed down their development, but if it works, its a massive game changer.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
A simple and sincere (sounding) apology would have sufficed.
It might have sufficed for a reasonable person (like your good self perhaps), but for the media? No, they'd have scented blood and wouldn't have stopped until they got their man.
'But by apologizing Mr. Cummings has admitted serious wrongdoing, so surely he must resign, minister?' x 1,000,000...
The media are less important than the public. An apology would have satisfied enough people that you would no longer have had a majority thinking he should resign/be sacked, and a substantial majority of Tory voters backing him.
You're making the same mistake the Left makes every time an attack from the Right resonates with the public. It's not all the "biased" media's fault.
The other thing to point out is that if the public were not still boiling with fury, newspapers wouldn't bother to cover it. Jenrick was only in the news for a day or so because it was all rather 'meh.' Cummings has repeatedly fanned the flames, apparently because he genuinely cannot bear to admit he has done something stupid. And therefore, he remains newsworthy.
Didn't the autopsy come back with it being far than certain that he was. Underlying serious health condition and intoxication being the leading causes of death.
Mmm. But I guess he might have lived a little longer without the knee-on-neck treatment.
I would be prepared to wager a fiver that he would have been arrested differently if he was white.
Did you read the report about the two sets of reporters one block apart? The black and hispanic CNN crew were arrested. The white reporter (also from CNN) was not...
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
And how did they find out? I think it is much more likely the source that could stand up such a story comes from within the government / civil service, as some would definitely know where he was, rather than a member of the public claiming they think they saw a weird bald bloke walking about.
Given how many people Cummings has pisses off, the list of potential candidates is massive.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Well there are several empty buildings at the moment, many with basements and concrete floors.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Fuck the government (of any shade). They are not owed the unquestioning supplicancy of the media or anyone else no matter what the circumstances.
Well said - that's why the media was given absolute freedom to report whatever they liked in WW2. If thousands more soldiers, sailors, and airmen lost their lives as a result, well, I'm sure they'd have understood that letting the media weigh in with their sniping and slanted guff was of infinitely greater value than their lives...
Are you suggesting the virus is reading the press and adapting its approach accordingly?
Let's imagine a parallel WW2 scenario, shall we?
There's a national blackout in preparation for the Blitz, to disrupt the Luftwaffe's ability to target their bombs effectively.
At the height of the attacks, the media obtains a story that a government adviser left all his lights on a couple of times in flagrant disregard of the blackout, although there may have been some mitigating personal factors.
It is believed that if the story becomes widely known, the effectiveness of the national blackout will be compromised, as the public leaves their lights on in protest at the adviser's actions.
Question: Should the media report that story, and if thousands more people die in Luftwaffe raids as a result, do they bear any moral responsibility for it?
Answer: Of course they shouldn't, and of course they would have been morally responsible. If the Guardian / Mirror / BBC had tried to pull this kind of shit then, matters would have worked out not necessarily to their advantage...
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
It doesn't spread off of surfaces ultra-easily. My anecdotal evidence for this is that we used the same metal wheelbarrow the day after a sufferer. I was completely fastidious about not touching my face/washing hands but my fianceé definitely did, though didn't fall ill. The time between those interactions would be about 24 hours.
How long ago? AIUI you could be incubating for at least seven, and possibly fourteen days.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
A simple and sincere (sounding) apology would have sufficed.
It might have sufficed for a reasonable person (like your good self perhaps), but for the media? No, they'd have scented blood and wouldn't have stopped until they got their man.
'But by apologizing Mr. Cummings has admitted serious wrongdoing, so surely he must resign, minister?' x 1,000,000...
The media are less important than the public. An apology would have satisfied enough people that you would no longer have had a majority thinking he should resign/be sacked, and a substantial majority of Tory voters backing him.
You're making the same mistake the Left makes every time an attack from the Right resonates with the public. It's not all the "biased" media's fault.
The other thing to point out is that if the public were not still boiling with fury, newspapers wouldn't bother to cover it. Jenrick was only in the news for a day or so because it was all rather 'meh.' Cummings has repeatedly fanned the flames, apparently because he genuinely cannot bear to admit he has done something stupid. And therefore, he remains newsworthy.
When you are an infallible genius, with a gift for making enemies, an inability to admit any weaknesses, an uncanny eye for the failings of mortals and a very obvious disdain for almost everyone you tend to get judged by a higher standard than others.
When you are an infallible genius, with a gift for making enemies, an inability to admit any weaknesses, an uncanny eye for the failings of mortals and a very obvious disdain for almost everyone you tend to get judged by a higher standard than others.
Cummings outside his house telling the press it doesn't matter what you think is perhaps the moment he tuned it into the giant clusterfuck it has become.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Fuck the government (of any shade). They are not owed the unquestioning supplicancy of the media or anyone else no matter what the circumstances.
Well said - that's why the media was given absolute freedom to report whatever they liked in WW2. If thousands more soldiers, sailors, and airmen lost their lives as a result, well, I'm sure they'd have understood that letting the media weigh in with their sniping and slanted guff was of infinitely greater value than their lives...
Are you suggesting the virus is reading the press and adapting its approach accordingly?
Let's imagine a parallel WW2 scenario, shall we?
There's a national blackout in preparation for the Blitz, to disrupt the Luftwaffe's ability to target their bombs effectively.
At the height of the attacks, the media obtains a story that a government adviser left all his lights on a couple of times in flagrant disregard of the blackout, although there may have been some mitigating personal factors.
It is believed that if the story becomes widely known, the effectiveness of the national blackout will be compromised, as the public leaves their lights on in protest at the adviser's actions.
Question: Should the media report that story, and if thousands more people die in Luftwaffe raids as a result, do they bear any moral responsibility for it?
Answer: Of course they shouldn't, and of course they would have been morally responsible. If the Guardian / Mirror / BBC had tried to pull this kind of shit then, matters would have worked out not necessarily to their advantage...
Yes, they did report stories like that.
Do you know what happened? The people in question became incredibly unpopular for undermining the national effort. It usually had the effect of getting them to behave.
I think the real crime of the media in the eyes of Cummings’ few remaining apologists is they have exposed just what a thick arrogant twat he is and therefore fatally undermined his credibility.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
It doesn't spread off of surfaces ultra-easily. My anecdotal evidence for this is that we used the same metal wheelbarrow the day after a sufferer. I was completely fastidious about not touching my face/washing hands but my fianceé definitely did, though didn't fall ill. The time between those interactions would be about 24 hours.
How long ago? AIUI you could be incubating for at least seven, and possibly fourteen days.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
The government did not have to fight the media, had its communications been more open and honest. No government in a democracy is entitled to a media which does not challenge it.
The press did repeatedly challenge the government in both world wars. Indeed, Northcliffe believed he had been instrumental in the collapse of Asquith's government (in which he was not altogether correct, although he was certainly important). The shell scandal of 1915 was a press story that forced important, radical changes. In the second world war, there were a very large number of stories about the inadequacy of air raid shelters that led to a whole new construction programme.
Absolutely. Though there were restrictions on reporting not justifiable in peacetime. Or viable in an age where everyone has a smartphone.
For fans of immunity, the Speccie is carrying a story about a study in Singapore suggesting that up to half of the population have a 'T-cell immune reaction' to Corona despite having never had the disease.
They say that this might be why populations often have such low antibody rates despite widespread exposure to corona. There's a big chunk of people with a form of immunity.
Essentially the study seems to be very much supported the views of the Oxford group on Corona and its path.
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
It is, however, more capable than the Saturn IB rocket, which was the immediate predecessor to the Saturn V. And as the Saturn IB cost, in todays dollars, $336 million per launch and a Falcon 9 will fly for around $50 million per launch, it's quite a lot more sustainable going forwards.
That Saturn V cost about 1.25 billion dollars (in 2019 dollars) per launch; Falcon Heavy goes for between 0.09 and 0.15 billion dollars (and that's not a typo). Of course, that Saturn V launches about twice as much per launch as a Falcon Heavy, but given that you could fly ten to fifteen Falcon Heavies for the price of a single Saturn V, it's more capable overall.
And assuming Starship flies and does anything like has been claimed (and I wouldn't bet against SpaceX on this), it would be far cheaper than even that per launch while being able to loft a similar amount to the Saturn V.
So while I'd fully agree with the disappointing last few decades in space exploration, we genuinely may well be on the verge of a revolutionary change in that.
I'm waiting impatiently for Reaction Engines to wheel the sabre engine out of the garage.
You're going to be waiting a while longer. They've been in business 15 years longer than SpaceX and produced nothing.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
See NOTW / phone hacking...just when Murdoch wanted to merge Sky and his newspapers, which would put many other newspapers at a massive disadvantage. Where as the Mirror didnt pose that threat and strangely wasn't of interest.
And of course the story that got the public outraged was fake news from the Guardian, after the initial tales of celebs got no public traction (see Cummings SAGE story).
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
A simple and sincere (sounding) apology would have sufficed.
It might have sufficed for a reasonable person (like your good self perhaps), but for the media? No, they'd have scented blood and wouldn't have stopped until they got their man.
'But by apologizing Mr. Cummings has admitted serious wrongdoing, so surely he must resign, minister?' x 1,000,000...
It would have taken some political subtlety to have (i) kept Cummings but (ii) made it clear that he took the matter seriously and there had been both reprimand and apology.
Johnson either lacked the skill and gumption to do this or - IMO more likely - lacked the authority with Cummings to do it.
Either way it's a bad look and the public have noticed.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Comparing with previous post-riot elections in US:
rioting 1966-67 (Detroit, Watts): * Nixon (R) won WH1968, taking WH from D; * incumbent (LBJ, D) had already won an election as president and unusually was allowed to stand again but chose not to; * far-right 3rd party on 14%;
rioting 1992 (LA - Rodney King):: * Clinton (D) won WH1992, taking WH from R * incumbent (GWB, R) stood and lost; * centrist 3rd party won 19%
How to assess?
* Role of 3rd parties was probably coincidental although perception of turmoil may benefit them. But even if the combined Libertarian and Green voteshare at 4% was three times higher in 2016 than in 2012 I don't see much scope for a Green advance in 2020 in the US or any country, now biology in the shape of the pandemic is viewed as top of the agenda worldwide.
* No particular "rule" regarding good for left or right, but perhaps good for a change of party and bad for any incumbent whether D or R?
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
It doesn't spread off of surfaces ultra-easily. My anecdotal evidence for this is that we used the same metal wheelbarrow the day after a sufferer. I was completely fastidious about not touching my face/washing hands but my fianceé definitely did, though didn't fall ill. The time between those interactions would be about 24 hours.
How long ago? AIUI you could be incubating for at least seven, and possibly fourteen days.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
Well, the idiots just guaranteed themselves a diamond-hard Brexit, so well done them on continuing their track record of self-defeat...
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
No. The killer here is, as I infuriate the Richard III society by pointing out, is that the story is not concocted out of lies and half truths. Although there are lies and half truths at the margins, the fundamentals are as described and they are utterly damning.
Richard III was not killed because of Tudor propaganda. He was killed because his own army refused to fight for a usurper, murderer and wannabe incestuous rapist. Nothing the Tudors said or did afterwards alters that.
Similarly Cummings is not damned because of media exaggeration. He’s damned because he broke quarantine repeatedly, in order to suit his own convenience.
Edit - with all his faults, Cummings is of course no Richard in personality or actions. But the parallel seems a good one.
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
It is, however, more capable than the Saturn IB rocket, which was the immediate predecessor to the Saturn V. And as the Saturn IB cost, in todays dollars, $336 million per launch and a Falcon 9 will fly for around $50 million per launch, it's quite a lot more sustainable going forwards.
That Saturn V cost about 1.25 billion dollars (in 2019 dollars) per launch; Falcon Heavy goes for between 0.09 and 0.15 billion dollars (and that's not a typo). Of course, that Saturn V launches about twice as much per launch as a Falcon Heavy, but given that you could fly ten to fifteen Falcon Heavies for the price of a single Saturn V, it's more capable overall.
And assuming Starship flies and does anything like has been claimed (and I wouldn't bet against SpaceX on this), it would be far cheaper than even that per launch while being able to loft a similar amount to the Saturn V.
So while I'd fully agree with the disappointing last few decades in space exploration, we genuinely may well be on the verge of a revolutionary change in that.
I'm waiting impatiently for Reaction Engines to wheel the sabre engine out of the garage.
You're going to be waiting a while longer. They've been in business 15 years longer than SpaceX and produced nothing.
Well true, but the technology is pretty revolutionary. I mean they have had to cool air from 1000 degrees centigrade to minus 150 in one 20th of a second constantly and consistently with no condensation.
IF they've finally managed it then it will be worth it.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
*looks at the front page of the Mail on Sunday*
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
You reckon they show up as infected in antigen tests but don't produce any antibodies?
Some asymptomatic certainly seem to produce antibodies:
Though it’s entirely possible that some don’t, I guess. Without population scale testing for both antigen and antibody, difficult to be sure. The Wuhan mass test might provide data ?
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
Well, the idiots just guaranteed themselves a diamond-hard Brexit, so well done them on continuing their track record of self-defeat...
No. 837 in the continuing series Blaming Remainers for the Brexit Shitshow.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
Perhaps the Tyne bridge would have been more appropriate, although it doesn't look dissimilar to SHB. TBF Cummings may have an ability to tell a tall story, but I don't think he had ever tried to sell a bridge he does not own.
Boris on the other hand successfully sold a non-existant Garden Bridge for a whopping £53m. Some salesman! PB Tories keep on buying his bridges regardless.
When you are an infallible genius, with a gift for making enemies, an inability to admit any weaknesses, an uncanny eye for the failings of mortals and a very obvious disdain for almost everyone you tend to get judged by a higher standard than others.
There used to be a saying in politics "Be nice to people on your way up, because they will be waiting for you when you fall back down"
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Difference is “arrest for the murder of” is clearly part of the court process.
“Was murdered” is a statement of fact about the situation
So you should not say somebody was murdered until there's a court verdict confirming it?
Didn't the autopsy come back with it being far than certain that he was. Underlying serious health condition and intoxication being the leading causes of death.
Mmm. But I guess he might have lived a little longer without the knee-on-neck treatment.
I am not defending the officer, i am just saying that the autopsy is part of the reason why he isn't charged with murder, rather the US equivalent of manslaughter.
It why we have autopsy and due process, rather than mob justice and the media should be careful about their reporting.
Lets not forget the massive riots in Ferguson all based on a false story that the media amplified.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
No. The killer here is, as I infuriate the Richard III society by pointing out, is that the story is not concocted out of lies and half truths. Although there are lies and half truths at the margins, the fundamentals are as described and they are utterly damning.
Richard III was not killed because of Tudor propaganda. He was killed because his own army refused to fight for a usurper, murderer and wannabe incestuous rapist. Nothing the Tudors said or did afterwards alters that.
Similarly Cummings is not damned because of media exaggeration. He’s damned because he broke quarantine repeatedly, in order to suit his own convenience.
Edit - with all his faults, Cummings is of course no Richard in personality or actions. But the parallel seems a good one.
I'm sure that he would be delighted if in 500 years' time there were to exist a 'Dominic Cummings Society' dedicated to rehabilitating the memory of this much maligned national hero...
When you are an infallible genius, with a gift for making enemies, an inability to admit any weaknesses, an uncanny eye for the failings of mortals and a very obvious disdain for almost everyone you tend to get judged by a higher standard than others.
There used to be a saying in politics "Be nice to people on your way up, because they will be waiting for you when you fall back down"
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
A simple and sincere (sounding) apology would have sufficed.
It might have sufficed for a reasonable person (like your good self perhaps), but for the media? No, they'd have scented blood and wouldn't have stopped until they got their man.
'But by apologizing Mr. Cummings has admitted serious wrongdoing, so surely he must resign, minister?' x 1,000,000...
The media are less important than the public. An apology would have satisfied enough people that you would no longer have had a majority thinking he should resign/be sacked, and a substantial majority of Tory voters backing him.
You're making the same mistake the Left makes every time an attack from the Right resonates with the public. It's not all the "biased" media's fault.
The other thing to point out is that if the public were not still boiling with fury, newspapers wouldn't bother to cover it. Jenrick was only in the news for a day or so because it was all rather 'meh.' Cummings has repeatedly fanned the flames, apparently because he genuinely cannot bear to admit he has done something stupid. And therefore, he remains newsworthy.
When you are an infallible genius, with a gift for making enemies, an inability to admit any weaknesses, an uncanny eye for the failings of mortals and a very obvious disdain for almost everyone you tend to get judged by a higher standard than others.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
No. The killer here is, as I infuriate the Richard III society by pointing out, is that the story is not concocted out of lies and half truths. Although there are lies and half truths at the margins, the fundamentals are as described and they are utterly damning.
Richard III was not killed because of Tudor propaganda. He was killed because his own army refused to fight for a usurper, murderer and wannabe incestuous rapist. Nothing the Tudors said or did afterwards alters that.
Similarly Cummings is not damned because of media exaggeration. He’s damned because he broke quarantine repeatedly, in order to suit his own convenience.
Edit - with all his faults, Cummings is of course no Richard in personality or actions. But the parallel seems a good one.
I'm sure that he would be delighted if in 500 years' time there were to exist a 'Dominic Cummings Society' dedicated to rehabilitating the memory of this much maligned national hero...
Which much maligned national hero did you have in mind?
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
*looks at the front page of the Mail on Sunday*
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
It turns out the guy who made up the story about seeing Cummings later in Barnard Castle - as a ‘joke’ - carefully altered a running app to make it seem he was present when he wasn’t. That is to say: he fabricated evidence.
Anyone who believes this story is just a random series of eye witnesses unearthed by the Guardian is an idiot.
Nicely sidestepped. Another witness has been plastered over the front page of the Mail today for no apparent reason other than the Mail wishes to curry favour with the government. If I’d been a witness I too would be ticking the no-publicity box. I have no desire to become the quarry for the government’s pet hyenas.
Totally off topic, having watched the rocket take off last night on tv, it reminds me of my childhood. I cant remeber the moon landings but I started school in 1973 and there was so much talk in the classroom about how we were going to conquer space, how we would live on the Moon and Mars and how we would visit other galaxies. We all wanted to be astronauts.
Its weird to think that the rocket that took off last night was less capable than the Saturn V rocket which first took off in 1967 and we are unable to build the Saturn V rocket anymore. I was 4 the last time a man left earth's orbit and I am 52 now.
I think back to my teachers in infant school talking about the conquest of space. What a failure that has been.
It is, however, more capable than the Saturn IB rocket, which was the immediate predecessor to the Saturn V. And as the Saturn IB cost, in todays dollars, $336 million per launch and a Falcon 9 will fly for around $50 million per launch, it's quite a lot more sustainable going forwards.
That Saturn V cost about 1.25 billion dollars (in 2019 dollars) per launch; Falcon Heavy goes for between 0.09 and 0.15 billion dollars (and that's not a typo). Of course, that Saturn V launches about twice as much per launch as a Falcon Heavy, but given that you could fly ten to fifteen Falcon Heavies for the price of a single Saturn V, it's more capable overall.
And assuming Starship flies and does anything like has been claimed (and I wouldn't bet against SpaceX on this), it would be far cheaper than even that per launch while being able to loft a similar amount to the Saturn V.
So while I'd fully agree with the disappointing last few decades in space exploration, we genuinely may well be on the verge of a revolutionary change in that.
I'm waiting impatiently for Reaction Engines to wheel the sabre engine out of the garage.
The heat exchanger technology they have developed works to Mach V they reckon.
I guess COVID must have slowed down their development, but if it works, its a massive game changer.
You and I may not agree on much, but we are completely aligned on this. I understand REL have been moving on this; it's just not that visible or in the news. Last autumn they demonstrated the heat exchanger working at Mach 5.
For those who haven't followed this story: Alan Bond, rocket designer and the mastermind behind the plans for HOTOL in the Eighties and Skylon in the modern era managed to work out a design for an air-breathing rocket engine (which vastly reduces the difficulty of getting to orbit in a spaceplane design as it can use the air on the way up) which took all the handwavy/black box/here-be-magic elements (which tended to infest such designs, which were beyond the edge of what was known) and put them into a single "black box".
Everything else other than that one black box was known and proven engineering. The black box turned out to be an element that could supercool incoming hypersonic air down from several hundred degrees to room temperature, do so in milliseconds, without any frosting or iceing, and weigh a hundredth of any comparable technology. Solve the black box, and the engine can be built.
And they've built the black box. Last year, they proved it in large scale airflow tests.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
You reckon they show up as infected in antigen tests but don't produce any antibodies?
No - the opposite. They don't show up as infected in antigen tests because igG antibodies are not produced. Their innate immune system deals with their viral dose in the first day or two and the acquired immune system doesn't need to come into play. They are "damp wood" in the conflagration that rips through the dry tinder (old and compromised) but doesn't allow the smouldering embers to flare up again except in isolated hot spots that are quickly extinguished using track, trace, isolate.
Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
Difference is “arrest for the murder of” is clearly part of the court process.
“Was murdered” is a statement of fact about the situation
So you should not say somebody was murdered until there's a court verdict confirming it?
Didn't the autopsy come back with it being far than certain that he was. Underlying serious health condition and intoxication being the leading causes of death.
Mmm. But I guess he might have lived a little longer without the knee-on-neck treatment.
I am not defending the officer, i am just saying that the autopsy is part of the reason why he isn't charged with murder, rather the US equivalent of manslaughter.
It why we have autopsy and due process, rather than mob justice and the media should be careful about their reporting.
Lets not forget the massive riots in Ferguson all based on a false story that the media amplified.
I fear the damage is done here. It's less about the media language than the fact that the killing took place on camera and with audio. Detached "due process" will be difficult. Anything other than cop guilty plus a long sentence will be incendiary. Plus I don't know how they pick a jury. They have to find 12 people without preconceptions and knowledge. Next to impossible. Maybe they should try it somewhere in rural Japan.
Provided the majority of socialization occurs outside, as indoor spaces like pubs remain closed, then it's entirely possible that the virus will not surge again. Yet.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
You reckon they show up as infected in antigen tests but don't produce any antibodies?
No - the opposite. They don't show up as infected in antigen tests because igG antibodies are not produced. Their innate immune system deals with their viral dose in the first day or two and the acquired immune system doesn't need to come into play. They are "damp wood" in the conflagration that rips through the dry tinder (old and compromised) but doesn't allow the smouldering embers to flare up again except in isolated hot spots that are quickly extinguished using track, trace, isolate.
The antigen tests are for the virus, not the antibody.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
*looks at the front page of the Mail on Sunday*
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
It turns out the guy who made up the story about seeing Cummings later in Barnard Castle - as a ‘joke’ - carefully altered a running app to make it seem he was present when he wasn’t. That is to say: he fabricated evidence.
Anyone who believes this story is just a random series of eye witnesses unearthed by the Guardian is an idiot.
Nicely sidestepped. Another witness has been plastered over the front page of the Mail today for no apparent reason other than the Mail wishes to curry favour with the government. If I’d been a witness I too would be ticking the no-publicity box. I have no desire to become the quarry for the government’s pet hyenas.
Ah, but of course: that way the supposed 'witnesses' get to remain anonymous while the witch-hunt resulting from their smears dominates the public discourse. Brilliant...
Didn't the autopsy come back with it being far than certain that he was. Underlying serious health condition and intoxication being the leading causes of death.
Mmm. But I guess he might have lived a little longer without the knee-on-neck treatment.
I would be prepared to wager a fiver that he would have been arrested differently if he was white.
Did you read the report about the two sets of reporters one block apart? The black and hispanic CNN crew were arrested. The white reporter (also from CNN) was not...
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
No. The killer here is, as I infuriate the Richard III society by pointing out, is that the story is not concocted out of lies and half truths. Although there are lies and half truths at the margins, the fundamentals are as described and they are utterly damning.
Richard III was not killed because of Tudor propaganda. He was killed because his own army refused to fight for a usurper, murderer and wannabe incestuous rapist. Nothing the Tudors said or did afterwards alters that.
Similarly Cummings is not damned because of media exaggeration. He’s damned because he broke quarantine repeatedly, in order to suit his own convenience.
Edit - with all his faults, Cummings is of course no Richard in personality or actions. But the parallel seems a good one.
This is why the minutiae of the rules are unimportant. Any quarter-competent wargamer would be asking, before embarking on the road to Durham, not "What is this" but "How could this be made to look by hostile commentators?"
"Marit ayin (Hebrew: מַרְאִית עַיִן 'appearance to the eye'; Ashkenazic transliteration: maris ayin), is a concept in halakha (Jewish law) which states that certain actions which might seem to observers to be in violation of Jewish law, but in reality are fully permissible, are themselves not allowed due to rabbinic enactments that were put in place to prevent onlookers from arriving at a false conclusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_ayin
In other words you can't eat bacon sandwiches, and you also can't eat vegan sandwiches cleverly engineered to look exactly like bacon sandwiches. Putting it another way, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Or a third way, "(iv) Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of the activities of the judge." https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/guide-to-judicial-conduct.pdf
Things must not only be above board, they must also look above board.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
A simple and sincere (sounding) apology would have sufficed.
It might have sufficed for a reasonable person (like your good self perhaps), but for the media? No, they'd have scented blood and wouldn't have stopped until they got their man.
'But by apologizing Mr. Cummings has admitted serious wrongdoing, so surely he must resign, minister?' x 1,000,000...
The media are less important than the public. An apology would have satisfied enough people that you would no longer have had a majority thinking he should resign/be sacked, and a substantial majority of Tory voters backing him.
You're making the same mistake the Left makes every time an attack from the Right resonates with the public. It's not all the "biased" media's fault.
An apology mixed with a he will now not cover covid/health issues but solely focus on brexit would have been perfect from the govts positioning.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
*looks at the front page of the Mail on Sunday*
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
It turns out the guy who made up the story about seeing Cummings later in Barnard Castle - as a ‘joke’ - carefully altered a running app to make it seem he was present when he wasn’t. That is to say: he fabricated evidence.
Anyone who believes this story is just a random series of eye witnesses unearthed by the Guardian is an idiot.
Nicely sidestepped. Another witness has been plastered over the front page of the Mail today for no apparent reason other than the Mail wishes to curry favour with the government. If I’d been a witness I too would be ticking the no-publicity box. I have no desire to become the quarry for the government’s pet hyenas.
Ah, but of course: that way the supposed 'witnesses' get to remain anonymous while the witch-hunt resulting from their smears dominates the public discourse. Brilliant...
Since Dominic Cummings has confirmed their account, why is their identity relevant?
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Because she resigned it was only news for 5 minutes when something else came along.
Oh, you mean she'll have to sit one bench behind the one she normally sits on? She doesn't have to resign the whip, have her career destroyed, and be hounded from public life?
Because that's the standard the media adopted for the Cummings witch-hunt...
Did you miss the fact she isn't a tory?
Did Cummings lose his job? I must have missed that.
The media have turned a health crisis into a political crisis by seeking to undermine the government's strategy at every turn, exploiting every inconsistency, difficult edge case and personal infraction in a ceaseless competitive spiral to outdo their rivals and, in passing, get one back for Brexit. The government can only manage the pandemic with the full support of the population. The correct role of the media in the face of this national crisis was to reinforce the authorities' core message, not to chip away at it 24/7.
Indeed. The media has undermined our fight against the coronavirus every single step of the way. Imagine how much easier it would be if the government didn't have to fight them and the virus at the same time?
Yeah, let’s neutralise the media. Who do they think they are investigating and questioning the Government’s actions? Shut the lot of them, much healthier if we had state run media. Imagine, without Fleet Street the death toll would still be in the hundreds.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
No. The killer here is, as I infuriate the Richard III society by pointing out, is that the story is not concocted out of lies and half truths. Although there are lies and half truths at the margins, the fundamentals are as described and they are utterly damning.
Richard III was not killed because of Tudor propaganda. He was killed because his own army refused to fight for a usurper, murderer and wannabe incestuous rapist. Nothing the Tudors said or did afterwards alters that.
Similarly Cummings is not damned because of media exaggeration. He’s damned because he broke quarantine repeatedly, in order to suit his own convenience.
Edit - with all his faults, Cummings is of course no Richard in personality or actions. But the parallel seems a good one.
This is why the minutiae of the rules are unimportant. Any quarter-competent wargamer would be asking, before embarking on the road to Durham, not "What is this" but "How could this be made to look by hostile commentators?"
"Marit ayin (Hebrew: מַרְאִית עַיִן 'appearance to the eye'; Ashkenazic transliteration: maris ayin), is a concept in halakha (Jewish law) which states that certain actions which might seem to observers to be in violation of Jewish law, but in reality are fully permissible, are themselves not allowed due to rabbinic enactments that were put in place to prevent onlookers from arriving at a false conclusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_ayin
In other words you can't eat bacon sandwiches, and you also can't eat vegan sandwiches cleverly engineered to look exactly like bacon sandwiches. Putting it another way, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Or a third way, "(iv) Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of the activities of the judge." https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/guide-to-judicial-conduct.pdf
Things must not only be above board, they must also look above board.
How hard to understand is this?
Because then we're no longer living under the rule of law, but under the rule of 'whatever will the neighbours think?' Which is a pretty backward mode of life.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
*looks at the front page of the Mail on Sunday*
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
It turns out the guy who made up the story about seeing Cummings later in Barnard Castle - as a ‘joke’ - carefully altered a running app to make it seem he was present when he wasn’t. That is to say: he fabricated evidence.
Anyone who believes this story is just a random series of eye witnesses unearthed by the Guardian is an idiot.
Nicely sidestepped. Another witness has been plastered over the front page of the Mail today for no apparent reason other than the Mail wishes to curry favour with the government. If I’d been a witness I too would be ticking the no-publicity box. I have no desire to become the quarry for the government’s pet hyenas.
Ah, but of course: that way the supposed 'witnesses' get to remain anonymous while the witch-hunt resulting from their smears dominates the public discourse. Brilliant...
Since Dominic Cummings has confirmed their account, why is their identity relevant?
Because there is literally no other way of excusing Cummings?
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
*looks at the front page of the Mail on Sunday*
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
It turns out the guy who made up the story about seeing Cummings later in Barnard Castle - as a ‘joke’ - carefully altered a running app to make it seem he was present when he wasn’t. That is to say: he fabricated evidence.
Anyone who believes this story is just a random series of eye witnesses unearthed by the Guardian is an idiot.
Nicely sidestepped. Another witness has been plastered over the front page of the Mail today for no apparent reason other than the Mail wishes to curry favour with the government. If I’d been a witness I too would be ticking the no-publicity box. I have no desire to become the quarry for the government’s pet hyenas.
Ah, but of course: that way the supposed 'witnesses' get to remain anonymous while the witch-hunt resulting from their smears dominates the public discourse. Brilliant...
Since Dominic Cummings has confirmed their account, why is their identity relevant?
Because there is literally no other way of excusing Cummings?
Apparently it’s an evil plot by which Remainers wickedly hypnotised Dominic Cummings into traversing the country repeatedly and then high-handedly refusing to accept that he’d done anything wrong.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules effecting others, went out while not suffering from Covid-19, admitted she was wrong, apologised, gave up her front bench role. She can be punished by her constituents at the next election in what was, until 2017, a safe Tory seat.
Cummings is unelected yet is in a senior position, helping make rules, went out while suffering from Covid-19, denied any wrongdoing, refused to apologise, failed even to give up his role attending SAGE. And he is not answerable to any constituents.
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of course not. That’s why I didn’t say ‘created’, I said ‘driven’.
Cummings was a fool to do all this, and he’s surely lying about the eye test road trip. Without his actions, there would be no scandal.
But this is PB and we can analyze a story in a more sophisticated way. Look at the mysterious witnesses who suddenly disappear on examination, or turn out to be ‘joking’. Where is the Mirror’s supposedly ‘reliable’ other witness? Why can’t they tell us who it is? Curious.
The story has been hastily concocted out of half truths and outright lies, to bring down the architect of Brexit and expose Boris Johnson, and to enforce a long extension to the transition: a political deed which must be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
No. The killer here is, as I infuriate the Richard III society by pointing out, is that the story is not concocted out of lies and half truths. Although there are lies and half truths at the margins, the fundamentals are as described and they are utterly damning.
Richard III was not killed because of Tudor propaganda. He was killed because his own army refused to fight for a usurper, murderer and wannabe incestuous rapist. Nothing the Tudors said or did afterwards alters that.
Similarly Cummings is not damned because of media exaggeration. He’s damned because he broke quarantine repeatedly, in order to suit his own convenience.
Edit - with all his faults, Cummings is of course no Richard in personality or actions. But the parallel seems a good one.
This is why the minutiae of the rules are unimportant. Any quarter-competent wargamer would be asking, before embarking on the road to Durham, not "What is this" but "How could this be made to look by hostile commentators?"
"Marit ayin (Hebrew: מַרְאִית עַיִן 'appearance to the eye'; Ashkenazic transliteration: maris ayin), is a concept in halakha (Jewish law) which states that certain actions which might seem to observers to be in violation of Jewish law, but in reality are fully permissible, are themselves not allowed due to rabbinic enactments that were put in place to prevent onlookers from arriving at a false conclusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_ayin
In other words you can't eat bacon sandwiches, and you also can't eat vegan sandwiches cleverly engineered to look exactly like bacon sandwiches. Putting it another way, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Or a third way, "(iv) Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of the activities of the judge." https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/guide-to-judicial-conduct.pdf
Things must not only be above board, they must also look above board.
How hard to understand is this?
Because then we're no longer living under the rule of law, but under the rule of 'whatever will the neighbours think?' Which is a pretty backward mode of life.
Sir Thomas Dugdale and Lord Carrington must both be turning in their graves.
I'm a wee bit confused. I've read on here that Cumgate is a stroke of tactical genius by the man himself, wrong footing opponents and distracting numpties from more serious and damaging stories. Otoh I've also read that it's a vile witch hunt got up by embittered Remoaners and libtards.
The really confusing thing is that both these things have been said by the same posters.
Not only that, but if you look at the comments Cummings is quoted as saying that his sister lived in a separate house on the property, and the author of the article has found no trace of the existence of such a house.
Presumably Cummings said that to make it appear that the offer of childcare wouldn't have involved the child moving into the house where his parents lived.
Comments
Cummings single handedly torpedoed the Government case, strategy and comms.
Ironic...
Which is more important, retaining public trust in the government as it tackles the virus or protecting Dominic Cummings from the consequences of his own behaviour?
Except there is no need - since the question has been answered.
'But by apologizing Mr. Cummings has admitted serious wrongdoing, so surely he must resign, minister?' x 1,000,000...
That extreme left-wing rag The Spectator even raises questions along these lines - that Boris's dependency on Cummings is poisoning the Party internally, so it is not just the Guardian and Socialist Worker pushing this.
And as the Saturn IB cost, in todays dollars, $336 million per launch and a Falcon 9 will fly for around $50 million per launch, it's quite a lot more sustainable going forwards.
That Saturn V cost about 1.25 billion dollars (in 2019 dollars) per launch; Falcon Heavy goes for between 0.09 and 0.15 billion dollars (and that's not a typo). Of course, that Saturn V launches about twice as much per launch as a Falcon Heavy, but given that you could fly ten to fifteen Falcon Heavies for the price of a single Saturn V, it's more capable overall.
And assuming Starship flies and does anything like has been claimed (and I wouldn't bet against SpaceX on this), it would be far cheaper than even that per launch while being able to loft a similar amount to the Saturn V.
So while I'd fully agree with the disappointing last few decades in space exploration, we genuinely may well be on the verge of a revolutionary change in that.
https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/1266957945423704066
https://twitter.com/wudup_blo/status/1266831784068517888
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1267003300131385348?s=19
Two very different developed countries, both as densely-populated as the UK, both with excellent outcomes.
https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1266975989684371456
You're making the same mistake the Left makes every time an attack from the Right resonates with the public. It's not all the "biased" media's fault.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
It why we have autopsy and due process, rather than mob justice and the media should be careful about their reporting.
Lets not forget the massive riots in Ferguson all based on a false story that the media amplified.
If a vaccine isn't ready for the autumn we have the potential of a difficult winter, with restrictions on crowded indoor places, and these months now will seem to have been wasted.
The heat exchanger technology they have developed works to Mach V they reckon.
I guess COVID must have slowed down their development, but if it works, its a massive game changer.
Did you read the report about the two sets of reporters one block apart? The black and hispanic CNN crew were arrested. The white reporter (also from CNN) was not...
https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protest-updates-05-28-20/h_9023ffd063def0b1af22cb3ecdc72a06
Given how many people Cummings has pisses off, the list of potential candidates is massive.
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
There's a national blackout in preparation for the Blitz, to disrupt the Luftwaffe's ability to target their bombs effectively.
At the height of the attacks, the media obtains a story that a government adviser left all his lights on a couple of times in flagrant disregard of the blackout, although there may have been some mitigating personal factors.
It is believed that if the story becomes widely known, the effectiveness of the national blackout will be compromised, as the public leaves their lights on in protest at the adviser's actions.
Question: Should the media report that story, and if thousands more people die in Luftwaffe raids as a result, do they bear any moral responsibility for it?
Answer: Of course they shouldn't, and of course they would have been morally responsible. If the Guardian / Mirror / BBC had tried to pull this kind of shit then, matters would have worked out not necessarily to their advantage...
AIUI you could be incubating for at least seven, and possibly fourteen days.
Do you know what happened? The people in question became incredibly unpopular for undermining the national effort. It usually had the effect of getting them to behave.
I think the real crime of the media in the eyes of Cummings’ few remaining apologists is they have exposed just what a thick arrogant twat he is and therefore fatally undermined his credibility.
Though there were restrictions on reporting not justifiable in peacetime. Or viable in an age where everyone has a smartphone.
They say that this might be why populations often have such low antibody rates despite widespread exposure to corona. There's a big chunk of people with a form of immunity.
Essentially the study seems to be very much supported the views of the Oxford group on Corona and its path.
But its a small survey and not peer reviewed.
And of course the story that got the public outraged was fake news from the Guardian, after the initial tales of celebs got no public traction (see Cummings SAGE story).
Johnson either lacked the skill and gumption to do this or - IMO more likely - lacked the authority with Cummings to do it.
Either way it's a bad look and the public have noticed.
rioting 1966-67 (Detroit, Watts):
* Nixon (R) won WH1968, taking WH from D;
* incumbent (LBJ, D) had already won an election as president and unusually was allowed to stand again but chose not to;
* far-right 3rd party on 14%;
rioting 1992 (LA - Rodney King)::
* Clinton (D) won WH1992, taking WH from R
* incumbent (GWB, R) stood and lost;
* centrist 3rd party won 19%
How to assess?
* Role of 3rd parties was probably coincidental although perception of turmoil may benefit them. But even if the combined Libertarian and Green voteshare at 4% was three times higher in 2016 than in 2012 I don't see much scope for a Green advance in 2020 in the US or any country, now biology in the shape of the pandemic is viewed as top of the agenda worldwide.
* No particular "rule" regarding good for left or right, but perhaps good for a change of party and bad for any incumbent whether D or R?
Richard III was not killed because of Tudor propaganda. He was killed because his own army refused to fight for a usurper, murderer and wannabe incestuous rapist. Nothing the Tudors said or did afterwards alters that.
Similarly Cummings is not damned because of media exaggeration. He’s damned because he broke quarantine repeatedly, in order to suit his own convenience.
Edit - with all his faults, Cummings is of course no Richard in personality or actions. But the parallel seems a good one.
IF they've finally managed it then it will be worth it.
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
Early viral clearance and antibody kinetics of COVID-19 among asymptomatic carriers
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.28.20083139v1
Though it’s entirely possible that some don’t, I guess.
Without population scale testing for both antigen and antibody, difficult to be sure. The Wuhan mass test might provide data ?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-19-stamped-out-in-guernsey-under-the-boots-of-a-one-woman-army-s2fn8v2w5?fbclid=IwAR1POpWDU2hjfpcbTc-6zaARu9P8eynv8ElB75D2lzyqU3aX6m7WqQkZM9E
https://universalcreditsuffer.com/2020/05/31/cummings-spare-cottage-without-planning-permission-and-pays-no-council-tax/?fbclid=IwAR0AD5aCCSf4aq39fTOSLnRW5xSet_6x8bVpQ9BKwc24M9KoobxjKYkWtEs
Boris on the other hand successfully sold a non-existant Garden Bridge for a whopping £53m. Some salesman! PB Tories keep on buying his bridges regardless.
He tried to sell the bridge that he predicted the pandemic on his blog, that he edited, after his illegal trip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE5Ve0y0m1Y
It was a bridge too far.
No word on whether he can still edit it...
I understand REL have been moving on this; it's just not that visible or in the news. Last autumn they demonstrated the heat exchanger working at Mach 5.
For those who haven't followed this story: Alan Bond, rocket designer and the mastermind behind the plans for HOTOL in the Eighties and Skylon in the modern era managed to work out a design for an air-breathing rocket engine (which vastly reduces the difficulty of getting to orbit in a spaceplane design as it can use the air on the way up) which took all the handwavy/black box/here-be-magic elements (which tended to infest such designs, which were beyond the edge of what was known) and put them into a single "black box".
Everything else other than that one black box was known and proven engineering. The black box turned out to be an element that could supercool incoming hypersonic air down from several hundred degrees to room temperature, do so in milliseconds, without any frosting or iceing, and weigh a hundredth of any comparable technology. Solve the black box, and the engine can be built.
And they've built the black box. Last year, they proved it in large scale airflow tests.
"Marit ayin (Hebrew: מַרְאִית עַיִן 'appearance to the eye'; Ashkenazic transliteration: maris ayin), is a concept in halakha (Jewish law) which states that certain actions which might seem to observers to be in violation of Jewish law, but in reality are fully permissible, are themselves not allowed due to rabbinic enactments that were put in place to prevent onlookers from arriving at a false conclusion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_ayin
In other words you can't eat bacon sandwiches, and you also can't eat vegan sandwiches cleverly engineered to look exactly like bacon sandwiches. Putting it another way, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Or a third way, "(iv) Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the
performance of all of the activities of the judge." https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/guide-to-judicial-conduct.pdf
Things must not only be above board, they must also look above board.
How hard to understand is this?
https://twitter.com/guardianscience/status/1267036867259592705
The really confusing thing is that both these things have been said by the same posters.
Presumably Cummings said that to make it appear that the offer of childcare wouldn't have involved the child moving into the house where his parents lived.