I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
Bollocks.
Once again you are letting your own personal bias get in the way of the facts.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
Of course we all know you hate him because of your personal and professional bigotry, but I will remind you that that record of failure included winning the EU referendum and getting Johnson elected - which in retrospect might have been a failure but not in the way you mean.
You are so blinded by your own hatred that you are also, to quote your own closing dribble, not worth listening to.
I hate him because he’s a bully and liar who has not merely failed but caused catastrophic damage in everything he’s touched - even where reform was badly needed, as in LEAs and the exam system.
And he’s doing the same thing here.
You don’t need to overthink it beyond that Richard.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
I watched the whole seven hours and Cummings was fascinating and clearly had an agenda, but he gave an insight into government that will resonate with many but his problem is that he is so utterly discredited that I expect any damage to Boris, Hancock and others will only be on the margins
Mind you, if HMG had a labour party that had any credence it would be like many Christmases all at once for them
I'm not sure those numbers are correct* - they certainly don't match the numbers from Bloomberg or the NYTimes.
Also, the EU has told AZ they don't want any more shipments post June, so I'd be very surprised if a lawsuit actually happened.
* They may have been correct in the past, but I don't think they're correct now.
They're on the CDC website - take your pick.
As to the EU suing ANZ:
EU seeking €10 per day per missing dose from #AstraZeneca for its failure to meet delivery schedule, as of 1 July. Plus €10 million for each breach of contract.
AstraZeneca is expected to be 200 million doses short by the end of June.
Yes, but they're not actually going to sue. Because there is no case.
This is all political posturing by the EU, to distract from their failings. And now that they've finally gotten their vaccination drive working, it will be quietly dropped.
Ultimately, there is no case. The contracts are clear, and there is no guarantee and there is certainly no "penalty payment".
This is like when a celebrity says they're going to sue someone for libel. It's a way of changing the conversation away from the EU's failings.
In general, I'd reckon the ratio between "I'm going to sue you" and "People actually getting sued" is probably about 10:1.
But the pharma companies (and no doubt companies in other industries too) are making a note of the attitude.
Why build that new factory in the EU, when putting it in the U.K. or Switzerland comes with a much more positive attitude from government?
If the EU wish for their case to be taken seriously, then no pharma will ever sign a contract with them again. Except cash on delivery, no warranties, express or implied.
No. they will do business.
In the oil business, there are levels of trust between the companies and national governments....
Norway - their governments handshake is good enough for billions Nigeria - to do a contract with them, they used to have to put billions in escrow in a neutral country like Switzerland. If they break any part of the deal, the money goes automatically to the oil company.
I’m sure the EU will love the comparison, and can look forward to sending billions to escrow accounts in Zurich and London.
Also: you can fly TOMORROW on Emirates from Dubai to Melbourne for $1,691.
That's not $10k.
Because very few citizens are being admitted:
You can travel to Australia if you are an Australian citizen, a permanent resident or a New Zealand citizen usually resident in Australia.
Australia has strict border measures in place to protect the health of the Australian community. Very limited flights are currently available to and from Australia and you may not be able to travel at this time.
The point is that AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS CAN TRAVEL TO AUSTRALIA.
Limited flights != No flights.
If I were Australian, I could go on-line now and book my quarantine, and book my ticket to Australia. I'm not saying it's not harder than normal, I am just saying that it is very far from impossible.
The issue aiui is getting a slot in quarantine rather than flights.
And that the airlines are limited as to how many pax they can discharge per plane, so they’re only selling Biz and 1st class tickets.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
Bollocks.
Once again you are letting your own personal bias get in the way of the facts.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
Of course we all know you hate him because of your personal and professional bigotry, but I will remind you that that record of failure included winning the EU referendum and getting Johnson elected - which in retrospect might have been a failure but not in the way you mean.
You are so blinded by your own hatred that you are also, to quote your own closing dribble, not worth listening to.
I hate him because he’s a bully and liar who has not merely failed but caused catastrophic damage in everything he’s touched - even where reform was badly needed, as in LEAs and the exam system.
And he’s doing the same thing here.
You don’t need to overthink it beyond that Richard.
No you just have to be wrong.
But I’m not, so we can let that solution go by default.
One thing I did find interesting was apparently he said he wasn’t good at his job and others would have done it better (which I think is what you were referring to).
And yet, he also says he tried to hang on to his job to limit the damage done by Johnson’s unfitness for office.
Those two statements seem to me to be contradictory. Or is there further nuance?
I think one reason incidentally that you and I are so far apart on Cummings is that you come to him through his books, while I judge him on his actual achievements. There is a very big gulf between the two.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
I watched the whole seven hours and Cummings was fascinating and clearly had an agenda, but he gave an insight into government that will resonate with many but his problem is that he is so utterly discredited that I expect any damage to Boris, Hancock and others will only be on the margins
Mind you, if HMG had a labour party that had any credence it would be like many Christmases all at once for them
The annoying thing for Hancock and Johnson is presumably having defended him over his laughable excuses for breaching quarantine and pretended to swallow them, they can’t even say ‘look, we all know the man’s a liar who makes shit up about childcare to cover the fact he wanted to lock down in a nice house with a garden.’
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
One one level, today has been one of those morality tales we tell children. Don't tell lies all the time, because you won't be believed when it counts.
Unfortunately, there are two grisly twists.
The first is that DC's lack of credibility will save the hide of BJ, another notorious liar.
The second is that the people who have actually suffered because of all of this are the ones who died or got sick needlessly, and those who love them.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Cummings says his decision to quit No 10 was linked to Carrie Symonds, the PM’s partner, trying to change various Downing Street appointments. In particular, he says she was trying to change the outcome of one official hiring process in a way that was “completely unethical”.
But he says his relationship with the PM had deteriorated. “Fundamentally I regarded him as unfit for the job,” says Cummings.
That’s actually the big one.
Symonds doesn’t have a job in No.10, but has previously worked for the party and knows everyone.
Presumably she doesn’t hold a security clearance, which would be an interesting line of questioning...
Does it make any significance on the last point that she is not formally hitched to Mr J (apart from the law of contract)? I don't know if it does ... jut seems a long time to wait ...
My thinking was that she might have been privy to stuff she wasn’t entitled to be, either from her betrothed or from others in the key meetings.
Being married or not I don’t think makes a difference, but one imagines that a Norma Major or Sarah Brown wasn’t on the messages with everyone in the meetings as a matter of course.
The long wait, I assume she wants the ‘fairytale’ wedding, which isn’t going to happen this summer as every possible venue was booked solid months ago. I’m surprised if she’s found a decent venue for next summer to be honest, unless they do it in government buildings.
Interesting to consider the alternative: that they had gone for a much earlier but minimal wedding - just two witnesses and that's it - to show an example.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Why would that mean driving to Barnard Castle for the day?
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Why would that mean driving to Barnard Castle for the day?
I think it was his real reason for leaving London. Apologies if not clear, but tbh I think he just wanted to lock down in a nice country cottage and said any old shit to justify it.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Why would that mean driving to Barnard Castle for the day?
I think it was his real reason for leaving London. Apologies if not clear, but tbh I think he just wanted to lock down in a nice country cottage and said any old shit to justify it.
I see.
TBH, that sounds barely more credible than his childcare claims.
All other considerations aside, although I can believe there were death threats made against him when the story came out because there are people who are scumbags and would have grossly overreacted (Richard and I having fully agreed that while serious the correct course was for him to resign) why would people be threatening to kill him at the time he was infected?
It sounds to me like he’s got his order of events confused. Possibly deliberately, possibly he’s just reordered events to suit his narrative.
Going to do a thread with various scientists/experts debunking elements of the coronavirus lab-leak theory. Let’s begin with the argument that zoonotic viruses need time to evolve before becoming highly transmissible among humans: https://twitter.com/Michael_Youhana/status/1397177065250689028
Anyone claiming they know for certain either way is either lying or stupid. And it appears to me that the natural origins hypothesis remind the most likely.
Biden disagrees with you. The White House has just released a statement, saying the two scenarios are equally likely, quite a significant step from an Administration that was dismissing the "lab leak " as conspiracy theory just a few weeks back,
Meanwhile Woke liberal hacks are still half-heartedly pushing this kind of bollocks:
"So @apoorva_nyc- one of the lead @nytimes reporters covering #Covid - just tweeted she believes the lab leak theory is “racist.” (She has since deleted the tweet.)
How can the Times let her cover any aspect of Covid going forward?"
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Why would that mean driving to Barnard Castle for the day?
I think it was his real reason for leaving London. Apologies if not clear, but tbh I think he just wanted to lock down in a nice country cottage and said any old shit to justify it.
I see.
TBH, that sounds barely more credible than his childcare claims.
All other considerations aside, although I can believe there were death threats made against him when the story came out because there are people who are scumbags and would have grossly overreacted (Richard and I having fully agreed that while serious the correct course was for him to resign) why would people be threatening to kill him at the time he was infected?
It sounds to me like he’s got his order of events confused. Possibly deliberately, possibly he’s just reordered events to suit his narrative.
Or he lied before and is lying now. As the police always say, once the suspect changes his story once, they’ll change it again.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Why would that mean driving to Barnard Castle for the day?
I think it was his real reason for leaving London. Apologies if not clear, but tbh I think he just wanted to lock down in a nice country cottage and said any old shit to justify it.
I see.
TBH, that sounds barely more credible than his childcare claims.
All other considerations aside, although I can believe there were death threats made against him when the story came out because there are people who are scumbags and would have grossly overreacted (Richard and I having fully agreed that while serious the correct course was for him to resign) why would people be threatening to kill him at the time he was infected?
It sounds to me like he’s got his order of events confused. Possibly deliberately, possibly he’s just reordered events to suit his narrative.
We do know that he had good reason to believe that it was his immediate duty to quarantine cos a familfy member had the pox as far as one could tell. So not just a matter of lockdown in a country cottage. Timing.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Why would that mean driving to Barnard Castle for the day?
I think it was his real reason for leaving London. Apologies if not clear, but tbh I think he just wanted to lock down in a nice country cottage and said any old shit to justify it.
I see.
TBH, that sounds barely more credible than his childcare claims.
All other considerations aside, although I can believe there were death threats made against him when the story came out because there are people who are scumbags and would have grossly overreacted (Richard and I having fully agreed that while serious the correct course was for him to resign) why would people be threatening to kill him at the time he was infected?
It sounds to me like he’s got his order of events confused. Possibly deliberately, possibly he’s just reordered events to suit his narrative.
Or he lied before and is lying now. As the police always say, once the suspect changes his story once, they’ll change it again.
Well, yes, but we all knew that anyway. You know, Richard knows, I know, the whole bloody country knows why he went to Durham. You quoted it in your own comment. And the whole country, if we’re honest, would probably have done the same thing if they were in a position to do so and thought they could get away with it. But it was illegal, and it was a clear conflict with his duty to the government to uphold their regulations. And for that he should have resigned and probably been fined.
THe much bigger story really is how much capital he spent lying about it, and the laws being twisted to fit his actions, only for him to be finally sacked anyway.
I hate to agree with him, and of course he hasn’t thought it through logically to this point, but you really do have to wonder what it says about the judgement of our PM that he not only employed but that he kept this man after such a shambles.
And today, we’re seeing even more evidence of his lack of sense.
Going to do a thread with various scientists/experts debunking elements of the coronavirus lab-leak theory. Let’s begin with the argument that zoonotic viruses need time to evolve before becoming highly transmissible among humans: https://twitter.com/Michael_Youhana/status/1397177065250689028
Anyone claiming they know for certain either way is either lying or stupid. And it appears to me that the natural origins hypothesis remind the most likely.
Biden disagrees with you. The White House has just released a statement, saying the two scenarios are equally likely, quite a significant step from an Administration that was dismissing the "lab leak " as conspiracy theory just a few weeks back,
Meanwhile Woke liberal hacks are still half-heartedly pushing this kind of bollocks:
"So @apoorva_nyc- one of the lead @nytimes reporters covering #Covid - just tweeted she believes the lab leak theory is “racist.” (She has since deleted the tweet.)
How can the Times let her cover any aspect of Covid going forward?"
It is pretty clear which is the crazier side of the debate
With all due respect to Biden, neither he nor anyone else (* outside of China) can say the lab leak vs natural origins are 'equally likely'. We don't know, period. You can't put probabilities to ignorance. Equally plausible, yes; equally likely, can't say.
Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who when interviewed by 60 Minutes last week said UAPs were seen almost every day for two years.
“Lot of great conversation going into the minutiae of the GIMBAL video. I fully support the different viewpoints and perspectives into the matter. However, I am not overly concerned about the details of the video. The shared footage is a very tiny piece of this puzzle.
I recognize it isn’t ‘fair’ for me to reference material that isn’t publicly available. However, to me, there is no argument.
Sensor/radar/datalink/PID/IFF/airplane schedule/geographic location are all pieces that indicate there shouldn’t have been a fleet of objects where they were.
This isn’t in question- these are the same tools we use to employ weapons and maintain sanitization of airspace. When the aircrew landed back on the boat, we had a crowd of fascinated intel officers and aircrew who watched all the data. The leads in the room were perplexed enough to call the Strike Group Admiral down to view the data.“
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Why would that mean driving to Barnard Castle for the day?
I think it was his real reason for leaving London. Apologies if not clear, but tbh I think he just wanted to lock down in a nice country cottage and said any old shit to justify it.
I see.
TBH, that sounds barely more credible than his childcare claims.
All other considerations aside, although I can believe there were death threats made against him when the story came out because there are people who are scumbags and would have grossly overreacted (Richard and I having fully agreed that while serious the correct course was for him to resign) why would people be threatening to kill him at the time he was infected?
It sounds to me like he’s got his order of events confused. Possibly deliberately, possibly he’s just reordered events to suit his narrative.
We do know that he had good reason to believe that it was his immediate duty to quarantine cos a familfy member had the pox as far as one could tell. So not just a matter of lockdown in a country cottage. Timing.
Even that doesn’t cover it, as by his own account he went into work while his wife was showing symptoms because he thought he was so important to the government’s response.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
First, I am commenting on the reporting of it and wouldn't and did not pretend otherwise. I also don't like Cummings, but have also defended him in the past, such as when people acted like he was some svengali controlling government, when whatever he or others thought Boris was in control and responsible for things, and treating him like an uber villain was just plain silly.
But despite your rather amusing hysterical reaction I wasn't ignoring (let alone brazenly) that he said some of the failings were his - I said I didn't buy his claims. You may think it wrong of me to disbelieve his claims of taking responsibility for himself, but I do disbelieve him, at least in the bit you summarised, because I find him fundamentally untrustworthy. It isn't ignoring what he said to disbelieve what he said. Boris Johnson says a lot of things, and it is not ignoring him when we doubt what he says.
Have you never heard of a non-apology apology? People can claim they are doing something without actually doing it. Politicians 'take responsibility' without taking responsibility all the time.
So before you get on your high horse about people misinterpreting others and misrepresenting it, try not doing the same thing, at least until you learn the difference between ignoring what someone has said and not believing what they are reported, by you, to have said.
You summarised him as saying he should never have been put into a position where he was advising on certain decisions. I find that claim, as you summarised for him, to be utterly absurd if one is taking responsibility for their own actions, in fact I find it undermining to someone who is genuinely taking responsibility.
Going to do a thread with various scientists/experts debunking elements of the coronavirus lab-leak theory. Let’s begin with the argument that zoonotic viruses need time to evolve before becoming highly transmissible among humans: https://twitter.com/Michael_Youhana/status/1397177065250689028
Anyone claiming they know for certain either way is either lying or stupid. And it appears to me that the natural origins hypothesis remind the most likely.
Biden disagrees with you. The White House has just released a statement, saying the two scenarios are equally likely, quite a significant step from an Administration that was dismissing the "lab leak " as conspiracy theory just a few weeks back,
Meanwhile Woke liberal hacks are still half-heartedly pushing this kind of bollocks:
"So @apoorva_nyc- one of the lead @nytimes reporters covering #Covid - just tweeted she believes the lab leak theory is “racist.” (She has since deleted the tweet.)
How can the Times let her cover any aspect of Covid going forward?"
It is pretty clear which is the crazier side of the debate
With all due respect to Biden, neither he nor anyone else (* outside of China) can say the lab leak vs natural origins are 'equally likely'. We don't know, period. You can't put probabilities to ignorance. Equally plausible, yes; equally likely, can't say.
Why are people so ready to make linguistic contortions in support of this evil regime?
Going to do a thread with various scientists/experts debunking elements of the coronavirus lab-leak theory. Let’s begin with the argument that zoonotic viruses need time to evolve before becoming highly transmissible among humans: https://twitter.com/Michael_Youhana/status/1397177065250689028
Anyone claiming they know for certain either way is either lying or stupid. And it appears to me that the natural origins hypothesis remind the most likely.
Biden disagrees with you. The White House has just released a statement, saying the two scenarios are equally likely, quite a significant step from an Administration that was dismissing the "lab leak " as conspiracy theory just a few weeks back,
Meanwhile Woke liberal hacks are still half-heartedly pushing this kind of bollocks:
"So @apoorva_nyc- one of the lead @nytimes reporters covering #Covid - just tweeted she believes the lab leak theory is “racist.” (She has since deleted the tweet.)
How can the Times let her cover any aspect of Covid going forward?"
It is pretty clear which is the crazier side of the debate
With all due respect to Biden, neither he nor anyone else (* outside of China) can say the lab leak vs natural origins are 'equally likely'. We don't know, period. You can't put probabilities to ignorance. Equally plausible, yes; equally likely, can't say.
Apologies to the Biden Administration. I see that Leon misread the letter, which clearly states that there is not sufficient evidence to be able to decide which is the more likely scenario - insufficient 'evidence to assess one to be more likely than the other'
Going to do a thread with various scientists/experts debunking elements of the coronavirus lab-leak theory. Let’s begin with the argument that zoonotic viruses need time to evolve before becoming highly transmissible among humans: https://twitter.com/Michael_Youhana/status/1397177065250689028
Anyone claiming they know for certain either way is either lying or stupid. And it appears to me that the natural origins hypothesis remind the most likely.
Biden disagrees with you. The White House has just released a statement, saying the two scenarios are equally likely, quite a significant step from an Administration that was dismissing the "lab leak " as conspiracy theory just a few weeks back,
Meanwhile Woke liberal hacks are still half-heartedly pushing this kind of bollocks:
"So @apoorva_nyc- one of the lead @nytimes reporters covering #Covid - just tweeted she believes the lab leak theory is “racist.” (She has since deleted the tweet.)
How can the Times let her cover any aspect of Covid going forward?"
It is pretty clear which is the crazier side of the debate
With all due respect to Biden, neither he nor anyone else (* outside of China) can say the lab leak vs natural origins are 'equally likely'. We don't know, period. You can't put probabilities to ignorance. Equally plausible, yes; equally likely, can't say.
Why are people so ready to make linguistic contortions in support of this evil regime?
I’m not a starry eyed admirer of Biden or the Pax Americana, but that’s a rather strange thing to say.
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
This mistakes the point. If a witness's credibility is undermined generally by character and conduct, as many think is the case with DC, and their evidence tends to damn some people totally and acquit others (Gove?) absolutely, then you believe that the witness may not be inclined to tell all the truth, may mislead, may be affected by his view of individuals and so on.
Of course some, much may be true, but apart from bits which are independently corroborated you don't know which parts and so you can't place profound reliance on any of it.
BTW, Labour have been backing his arguments. If DC had attacked Labour today instead of the Tories they would have made exactly the point I haver just made.
For all these reasons I see no case for thinking this will run for long or make much difference.
Going to do a thread with various scientists/experts debunking elements of the coronavirus lab-leak theory. Let’s begin with the argument that zoonotic viruses need time to evolve before becoming highly transmissible among humans: https://twitter.com/Michael_Youhana/status/1397177065250689028
Anyone claiming they know for certain either way is either lying or stupid. And it appears to me that the natural origins hypothesis remind the most likely.
Biden disagrees with you. The White House has just released a statement, saying the two scenarios are equally likely, quite a significant step from an Administration that was dismissing the "lab leak " as conspiracy theory just a few weeks back,
Meanwhile Woke liberal hacks are still half-heartedly pushing this kind of bollocks:
"So @apoorva_nyc- one of the lead @nytimes reporters covering #Covid - just tweeted she believes the lab leak theory is “racist.” (She has since deleted the tweet.)
How can the Times let her cover any aspect of Covid going forward?"
It is pretty clear which is the crazier side of the debate
With all due respect to Biden, neither he nor anyone else (* outside of China) can say the lab leak vs natural origins are 'equally likely'. We don't know, period. You can't put probabilities to ignorance. Equally plausible, yes; equally likely, can't say.
Why are people so ready to make linguistic contortions in support of this evil regime?
If you are referring to what I wrote, I am not making linguistic contortions, but asserting epistemological reality. The Biden administration said they don't know enough to decide which scenario is the more likely; Leon clearly incorrectly equated that with both scenarios being equally likely. Leon is claiming we have more knowledge than we do. We simply do not know.
I agree that China has a horrible regime. But what has that got to do with what we know and what we don't (apart from the fact that they have clearly concealed much information from us)?
Cummings says his decision to quit No 10 was linked to Carrie Symonds, the PM’s partner, trying to change various Downing Street appointments. In particular, he says she was trying to change the outcome of one official hiring process in a way that was “completely unethical”.
But he says his relationship with the PM had deteriorated. “Fundamentally I regarded him as unfit for the job,” says Cummings.
That’s actually the big one.
Symonds doesn’t have a job in No.10, but has previously worked for the party and knows everyone.
Presumably she doesn’t hold a security clearance, which would be an interesting line of questioning...
Does it make any significance on the last point that she is not formally hitched to Mr J (apart from the law of contract)? I don't know if it does ... jut seems a long time to wait ...
My thinking was that she might have been privy to stuff she wasn’t entitled to be, either from her betrothed or from others in the key meetings.
Being married or not I don’t think makes a difference, but one imagines that a Norma Major or Sarah Brown wasn’t on the messages with everyone in the meetings as a matter of course.
The long wait, I assume she wants the ‘fairytale’ wedding, which isn’t going to happen this summer as every possible venue was booked solid months ago. I’m surprised if she’s found a decent venue for next summer to be honest, unless they do it in government buildings.
A Washington Post journalist. The actual Washington Post factchecker. This time last year:
"Glenn Kessler @GlennKesslerWP I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves."
Not a shred of remorse, no apology, not even a Whoops!
WE DEAL IN FACTS
He actually says this in his own piece
"As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored. But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds. This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab’s activities before the coronavirus emerged."
I wonder who was "generally ignoring" important information, Mr We-Deal-With-Facts-And-Actual-Scientists?
Cummings says his decision to quit No 10 was linked to Carrie Symonds, the PM’s partner, trying to change various Downing Street appointments. In particular, he says she was trying to change the outcome of one official hiring process in a way that was “completely unethical”.
But he says his relationship with the PM had deteriorated. “Fundamentally I regarded him as unfit for the job,” says Cummings.
That’s actually the big one.
Symonds doesn’t have a job in No.10, but has previously worked for the party and knows everyone.
Presumably she doesn’t hold a security clearance, which would be an interesting line of questioning...
Does it make any significance on the last point that she is not formally hitched to Mr J (apart from the law of contract)? I don't know if it does ... jut seems a long time to wait ...
My thinking was that she might have been privy to stuff she wasn’t entitled to be, either from her betrothed or from others in the key meetings.
Being married or not I don’t think makes a difference, but one imagines that a Norma Major or Sarah Brown wasn’t on the messages with everyone in the meetings as a matter of course.
The long wait, I assume she wants the ‘fairytale’ wedding, which isn’t going to happen this summer as every possible venue was booked solid months ago. I’m surprised if she’s found a decent venue for next summer to be honest, unless they do it in government buildings.
Won't it be House of Commons plus Chequers?
That’s the obvious, but if so why the 15 month wait?
I see Dominic Cummings has been having a series of epic self-awareness fails.
Does anyone actually believe what he’s saying?
Yes and quite a lot of what he is saying is genuinely interesting and thought provoking. But our press will focus on the political tittle tattle as always.
That would be a first.
While I can quite believe Hancock’s a liar, Johnson’s a buffoon and SAGE are a bunch of third rate loons with no common sense whatsoever, much of it seems to be saying how wonderful everything would be if he had been in charge.
Yet he was, in effect, in charge.
So why was it not wonderful?
Because ultimately, he is a rather stupid and dishonest narcissist with a track record of failure and incompetence, that he subsequently retcons to look like genius. His work for IDS, his two days working on the NE Assembly referendum, his time at the DfE, his lies in the EU referendum, his mad plans for civil service reform that missed the point entirely, his breaches of quarantine and crazy lies to cover his tracks - they follow a pattern. And so does this.
So whatever he’s saying, it’s not worth listening to.
He never said it would have been wonderful if he had been in charge, in fact he said exactly the opposite. He admitted he had made many mistakes and got a lot wrong. He was clear about that and also said he should never have been put in a position where he was advising on those decisions.
I don't buy such a claim. You cannot be forced into such a thing, anyone can easily say 'this should not be for me to advise upon'.
Done.
Given the disdain he apparently had for the whole business and many of the people involved that would have been very easy as well, since he wouldn't feel a need to coddle people he did not respect, and would not feel concern at telling them he should not be involved.
It sounds like implausible justification for why he was involved not being at least partly his responsibility. Yes the person who appoints a fool is more to blame than the fool, but Cummings has agency, he wasn't buffeted by the winds of fate.
Like ydoethur you brazenly ignore the fact that he did take responsibility and did say that some of the failings were his. In fact he repeated it on a number of occasions. He also praised many of those he worked with so again you misrepresent his evidence. I wonder if, like ydoethur you didn't actually see any of the evidence and are just commenting on snippets. Or maybe like ydoethur you just chose to ignore anything that doesn't suit your pre conceived ideas.
It does, though, rather well illustrate the point that even well merited criticisms will be devalued if they come from him.
Yep I accept that. He is a deeply flawed character in many ways. But that doesn't mean a word of what he said today was untrue.
He wasn’t in a court of law, but so much of what he said today was things attributed to other people. Hearsay. In any rounded enquiry those he has made allegations will be given a chance to respond. Is it all true? Doubtful, he even admitted to lying about Bernard castle today. He is a liar. Is some of it true? Almost certainly, but has put his spin on it. Johnson is probably one of the worst leaders we could have had for this. That’s our misfortune. But it would be a mistake to refight Barbarossa and have the Germans get everything right, and Russians make all the mistakes. Whoever was in charge, tens of thousands would have died. This was close to a kobatashi Mary as you’ll get in government.
Wait, what? I missed that!
He now claims there were threats to break into his house and kill everyone.
Why would that mean driving to Barnard Castle for the day?
I think it was his real reason for leaving London. Apologies if not clear, but tbh I think he just wanted to lock down in a nice country cottage and said any old shit to justify it.
I see.
TBH, that sounds barely more credible than his childcare claims.
All other considerations aside, although I can believe there were death threats made against him when the story came out because there are people who are scumbags and would have grossly overreacted (Richard and I having fully agreed that while serious the correct course was for him to resign) why would people be threatening to kill him at the time he was infected?
It sounds to me like he’s got his order of events confused. Possibly deliberately, possibly he’s just reordered events to suit his narrative.
Or he lied before and is lying now. As the police always say, once the suspect changes his story once, they’ll change it again.
Well, yes, but we all knew that anyway. You know, Richard knows, I know, the whole bloody country knows why he went to Durham. You quoted it in your own comment. And the whole country, if we’re honest, would probably have done the same thing if they were in a position to do so and thought they could get away with it. But it was illegal, and it was a clear conflict with his duty to the government to uphold their regulations. And for that he should have resigned and probably been fined.
THe much bigger story really is how much capital he spent lying about it, and the laws being twisted to fit his actions, only for him to be finally sacked anyway.
I hate to agree with him, and of course he hasn’t thought it through logically to this point, but you really do have to wonder what it says about the judgement of our PM that he not only employed but that he kept this man after such a shambles.
And today, we’re seeing even more evidence of his lack of sense.
If Boris had fired Cummings over Durham, people would have questioned how Boris reached Chequers to convalesce.
The fact cases are still going up shows that the r0 of the India variant is pretty damn high. Now we've got plenty more to vaccinate, and boosters to come on top as well but still.
Pretty crap numbers today TBH, I’d hoped for a cooling off but although the peak seems to have passed in Bolton, there are coming peaks elsewhere (chiefly in the NW).
The fact cases are still going up shows that the r0 of the India variant is pretty damn high. Now we've got plenty more to vaccinate, and boosters to come on top as well but still.
I think a lot of the cases are in schools. @Malmesbury data shows this. I have a hunch that Indian travellers have infected multigenerational families and it has then spread into the schools. There is very little sign of a rise outside the main areas. If anything the yellow is spreading across the MSOA data map.
Yes, one notable thing is the failure of these cases to spread geographically. Still, we need some good news from the hotspots soon to stave off bedwetting. Today’s numbers were a bit shit.
Cummings says his decision to quit No 10 was linked to Carrie Symonds, the PM’s partner, trying to change various Downing Street appointments. In particular, he says she was trying to change the outcome of one official hiring process in a way that was “completely unethical”.
But he says his relationship with the PM had deteriorated. “Fundamentally I regarded him as unfit for the job,” says Cummings.
That’s actually the big one.
Symonds doesn’t have a job in No.10, but has previously worked for the party and knows everyone.
Presumably she doesn’t hold a security clearance, which would be an interesting line of questioning...
Does it make any significance on the last point that she is not formally hitched to Mr J (apart from the law of contract)? I don't know if it does ... jut seems a long time to wait ...
My thinking was that she might have been privy to stuff she wasn’t entitled to be, either from her betrothed or from others in the key meetings.
Being married or not I don’t think makes a difference, but one imagines that a Norma Major or Sarah Brown wasn’t on the messages with everyone in the meetings as a matter of course.
The long wait, I assume she wants the ‘fairytale’ wedding, which isn’t going to happen this summer as every possible venue was booked solid months ago. I’m surprised if she’s found a decent venue for next summer to be honest, unless they do it in government buildings.
Won't it be House of Commons plus Chequers?
That’s the obvious, but if so why the 15 month wait?
The fact cases are still going up shows that the r0 of the India variant is pretty damn high. Now we've got plenty more to vaccinate, and boosters to come on top as well but still.
Pretty crap numbers today TBH, I’d hoped for a cooling off but although the peak seems to have passed in Bolton, there are coming peaks elsewhere (chiefly in the NW).
A lot of vaccinations were done in Bolton and Blackburn last week.
Comments
Mind you, if HMG had a labour party that had any credence it would be like many Christmases all at once for them
One thing I did find interesting was apparently he said he wasn’t good at his job and others would have done it better (which I think is what you were referring to).
And yet, he also says he tried to hang on to his job to limit the damage done by Johnson’s unfitness for office.
Those two statements seem to me to be contradictory. Or is there further nuance?
I think one reason incidentally that you and I are so far apart on Cummings is that you come to him through his books, while I judge him on his actual achievements. There is a very big gulf between the two.
Karma’s a bitch...
Edited - WTAF did autocorrect do there?
Unfortunately, there are two grisly twists.
The first is that DC's lack of credibility will save the hide of BJ, another notorious liar.
The second is that the people who have actually suffered because of all of this are the ones who died or got sick needlessly, and those who love them.
But I’m delighted to hear it’s got that far.
Unless it’s caused by vaccine refusal, in which case I’m somewhat less delighted.
I suppose behaving like the sharn spreader on the fields out the back of my houses in flinging the contents of the midden in precise strips.
TBH, that sounds barely more credible than his childcare claims.
All other considerations aside, although I can believe there were death threats made against him when the story came out because there are people who are scumbags and would have grossly overreacted (Richard and I having fully agreed that while serious the correct course was for him to resign) why would people be threatening to kill him at the time he was infected?
It sounds to me like he’s got his order of events confused. Possibly deliberately, possibly he’s just reordered events to suit his narrative.
https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1397604276558565388?s=20
Meanwhile Woke liberal hacks are still half-heartedly pushing this kind of bollocks:
"So @apoorva_nyc- one of the lead @nytimes reporters covering #Covid - just tweeted she believes the lab leak theory is “racist.” (She has since deleted the tweet.)
How can the Times let her cover any aspect of Covid going forward?"
https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1397577070025269249?s=20
It is pretty clear which is the crazier side of the debate
Villareal 4.4
Draw 3.65
Man U 1.99
Prices via betfair.com
THe much bigger story really is how much capital he spent lying about it, and the laws being twisted to fit his actions, only for him to be finally sacked anyway.
I hate to agree with him, and of course he hasn’t thought it through logically to this point, but you really do have to wonder what it says about the judgement of our PM that he not only employed but that he kept this man after such a shambles.
And today, we’re seeing even more evidence of his lack of sense.
Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who when interviewed by 60 Minutes last week said UAPs were seen almost every day for two years.
“Lot of great conversation going into the minutiae of the GIMBAL video. I fully support the different viewpoints and perspectives into the matter. However, I am not overly concerned about the details of the video. The shared footage is a very tiny piece of this puzzle.
I recognize it isn’t ‘fair’ for me to reference material that isn’t publicly available. However, to me, there is no argument.
Sensor/radar/datalink/PID/IFF/airplane schedule/geographic location are all pieces that indicate there shouldn’t have been a fleet of objects where they were.
This isn’t in question- these are the same tools we use to employ weapons and maintain sanitization of airspace. When the aircrew landed back on the boat, we had a crowd of fascinated intel officers and aircrew who watched all the data. The leads in the room were perplexed enough to call the Strike Group Admiral down to view the data.“
Meanwhile on CNN: https://youtu.be/ousWgSIPbwE
Barely worth mentioning these days.
But despite your rather amusing hysterical reaction I wasn't ignoring (let alone brazenly) that he said some of the failings were his - I said I didn't buy his claims. You may think it wrong of me to disbelieve his claims of taking responsibility for himself, but I do disbelieve him, at least in the bit you summarised, because I find him fundamentally untrustworthy. It isn't ignoring what he said to disbelieve what he said. Boris Johnson says a lot of things, and it is not ignoring him when we doubt what he says.
Have you never heard of a non-apology apology? People can claim they are doing something without actually doing it. Politicians 'take responsibility' without taking responsibility all the time.
So before you get on your high horse about people misinterpreting others and misrepresenting it, try not doing the same thing, at least until you learn the difference between ignoring what someone has said and not believing what they are reported, by you, to have said.
You summarised him as saying he should never have been put into a position where he was advising on certain decisions. I find that claim, as you summarised for him, to be utterly absurd if one is taking responsibility for their own actions, in fact I find it undermining to someone who is genuinely taking responsibility.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1397592896195502086
It was I who used the all fart and no follow through line today.
I'm as much a cybernat as I am a Islamophobe.
Apparently the snowflakes cannot deal with a bit of Yorkshire vernacular.
Or are you in the bit that is now Sheffield?
Edit - In fact I have.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/03/05/arron-banks-v-douglas-carswell-lets-get-ready-to-rhumble/
Of course some, much may be true, but apart from bits which are independently corroborated you don't know which parts and so you can't place profound reliance on any of it.
BTW, Labour have been backing his arguments. If DC had attacked Labour today instead of the Tories they would have made exactly the point I haver just made.
For all these reasons I see no case for thinking this will run for long or make much difference.
https://twitter.com/Number10cat/status/1397600280976449537
I agree that China has a horrible regime. But what has that got to do with what we know and what we don't (apart from the fact that they have clearly concealed much information from us)?
A Washington Post journalist. The actual Washington Post factchecker. This time last year:
"Glenn Kessler
@GlennKesslerWP
I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves."
WE DEAL IN FACTS
VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/1256267931220049920?s=20
And now, the same guy, a year later:
"Glenn Kessler
@GlennKesslerWP
NEW #FactChecker --> Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible"
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/1397166166590767111?s=20
Not a shred of remorse, no apology, not even a Whoops!
WE DEAL IN FACTS
He actually says this in his own piece
"As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored. But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds. This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab’s activities before the coronavirus emerged."
I wonder who was "generally ignoring" important information, Mr We-Deal-With-Facts-And-Actual-Scientists?
NEW THREAD
LOL. New fredded.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=ltla&areaName=Bolton
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=ltla&areaName=Blackburn with Darwen
It will be interesting to see, in two weeks time, what effect they have.