politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At the start of lockdown Johnson’s Tories had poll leads of up
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At the start of lockdown Johnson’s Tories had poll leads of upto 26% – now the latest two surveys have that down at 6%
On the face of it the polling trends look worrying for the Conservatives and good for LAB which is seeing a lot of progress in getting the gap smaller.
Comments
-
First like Boris1
-
Lockdown easing helps the blue line.
1 -
Third!0
-
That curve doesn't appear to be flattening.0
-
I don't think crossover will come because of Cummings, it might come due to millions on the dole....3
-
I love how the lockdown guidelines are so clear apparently that even Durham Police don’t know if Dom truly broke them.0
-
Is the issue with the guidelines, or with needing evidence?Gallowgate said:I love how the lockdown guidelines are so clear apparently that even Durham Police don’t know if Dom truly broke them.
0 -
First to resign?squareroot2 said:First like Boris
0 -
The bonking scientist and the scottish woman didn't have to go either. They folded to journalism. There was no reason to, they're not even politicians.
The bonking scientist thought he was immune!0 -
All that has been confirmed is official recognition that there are different actions for the rich and well connected. Usually Police pretend that is not so...Gallowgate said:I love how the lockdown guidelines are so clear apparently that even Durham Police don’t know if Dom truly broke them.
2 -
There’s no point having an offense you can hardly enforce due to evidential problems.RobD said:
Is the issue with the guidelines, or with needing evidence?Gallowgate said:I love how the lockdown guidelines are so clear apparently that even Durham Police don’t know if Dom truly broke them.
0 -
FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.1 -
True - but it will come sooner because of Cummings.squareroot2 said:I don't think crossover will come because of Cummings, it might come due to millions on the dole....
0 -
That hasn't stopped them issuing a hundred-odd fines. Dealing with a historical (for want of a better word) alleged infraction is a little more difficult.Gallowgate said:
There’s no point having an offense you can hardly enforce due to evidential problems.RobD said:
Is the issue with the guidelines, or with needing evidence?Gallowgate said:I love how the lockdown guidelines are so clear apparently that even Durham Police don’t know if Dom truly broke them.
0 -
I liked isam's idea of making Cummings pay a £30 fine.
2 -
That's wrong since they can issue an on-the-spot fine. Yes, it can later be challenged in court, but if they are confident a rule was broken they will do that.Scott_xP said:2 -
Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?
A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.
PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay
0 -
@Philip_Thompson I’m still laughing at what is either your naivety or your gall.0
-
Who has said it was legal? You said repeatedly that only a court could decide that.Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.0 -
-
What does Ian Blackford know that the Durham constabulary don't?Scott_xP said:1 -
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:2 -
And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.1 -
Secret Barrister, Public BullshitScott_xP said: 1 -
I will never accept the outcome here, because he used a loophole inserted to help child abuse sufferers which the vast majority of people didn't know about. He is effectively saying the people who obeyed the rules are stupid and don't have the interests of their own children at heart. His arrogance is astounding. When was the loophole inserted, after his visit to Durham?Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.0 -
Let the gerrymandering... i mean completely fair and balanced re-drawing of the constituency boundaries.. commence.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.1 -
Apologies are out of fashion on every front at the minute...Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.
1 -
No they didn't, see their statement.Carnyx said:1 -
Prices crash as the money piles on; Shadsy remains the most Cummings-sceptical.DecrepiterJohnL said:Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?
A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.
PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay
PP/Betfair: 5/1 go, 1/10 stay
Ladbrokes: 3/1 go, 1/5 stay
Starsports: 11/2 go, 1/10 stay
0 -
You were laughed at for swallowing the Cummings story hook line & sinker.Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.4 -
1
-
Oh lord, we are in for deliberatly misunderstand legal lanugauge time aren't we. This is like when people don't understand the difference between 'deliberate' and 'reckless'Scott_xP said:0 -
Yeah, the politics of it are terrible and I still think he should have resigned days ago.MikeSmithson said:1 -
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"RobD said:
No they didn't, see their statement.Carnyx said:0 -
Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.DecrepiterJohnL said:Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?
A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.
PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay
I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.
This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.2 -
Since when does the Prime Minister take orders from that flatulent fantasist?Scott_xP said:1 -
0
-
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Durham Police “do not consider” the trio to have breached the rules. A court may consider differently.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.
Will you and @Philip_Thompson please stop implying that a police force “not considering” something is not the same as clearing them of it. It is disingenuous rubbish from partisan hacks with no legal knowledge whatsoever. An apology for getting this so badly wrong from the two of you would be in order.0 -
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?eek said:
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"RobD said:
No they didn't, see their statement.Carnyx said:1 -
OT -- Telegraph on Britain's most underrated county, Bedfordshire
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/england/bedfordshire/articles/bedfordshire-englands-most-underrated-county/0 -
Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
0 -
Free money.DecrepiterJohnL said:Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?
A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.
PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay0 -
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:0 -
Can someone show me where this clears him? Eyesight not what it was.0 -
Fire up the Gina - lets waste the courts time again...DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:1 -
Yeah, the Durham trip was always legal, its why the media leaked the Barnard castle stuff on the second, third days.
I mean, this is all REALLY obvious, right?1 -
Innocent until proven guilty.DougSeal said:
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Durham Police “do not consider” the trio to have breached the rules. A court may consider differently.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.
Will you and @Philip_Thompson please stop implying that a police force “not considering” something is not the same as clearing them of it. It is disingenuous rubbish from partisan hacks with no legal knowledge whatsoever. An apology for getting this so badly wrong from the two of you would be in order.
If the Police consider someone innocent then they are innocent under the law since it won't reach the court. If they consider someone guilty then they may pass it to the CPS, then they may pass it to the Courts but the Courts are the final arbiter not the first one.1 -
Perhaps the Fox Killer could crowdfund it ?TGOHF666 said:
Fire up the Gina - lets waste the courts time again...DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:0 -
Give it up now. So I'll fine you under "don't have humility to acknowledge was wrong".DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:
I mistakenly admitted I was wrong in the last thread when journalists lied and said that the Barnhard Castle was a breach I put my hands up and admitted I'd called that one wrong. Then the truth came out and it was "might". Nevermind.
So I have more humility and grace than you. Oh well.1 -
What court? He's not going to court, so that's completely irrelevant.DougSeal said:
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Durham Police “do not consider” the trio to have breached the rules. A court may consider differently.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.
Will you and @Philip_Thompson please stop implying that a police force “not considering” something is not the same as clearing them of it. It is disingenuous rubbish from partisan hacks with no legal knowledge whatsoever. An apology for getting this so badly wrong from the two of you would be in order.
Do you think jumping up and down is going to change the reality of the police statement, which is that Cummings did nothing wrong and no further action is going to be taken against him? Because it won't.1 -
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!1 -
I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.Brom said:
Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.DecrepiterJohnL said:Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?
A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.
PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay
I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.
This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.
What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.0 -
The Cummings story is the truth unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which there isn't.kinabalu said:
You were laughed at for swallowing the Cummings story hook line & sinker.Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.
My default assumption is not to say everyone is lying just because its politically convenient to call them liars.2 -
Private prosecution or private persecution? I'm sure you know what the words 'nolle prosequi' mean.DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:0 -
.....unless they're Labour/LibDem or SNP....Philip_Thompson said:
The Cummings story is the truth unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which there isn't.kinabalu said:
You were laughed at for swallowing the Cummings story hook line & sinker.Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.
My default assumption is not to say everyone is lying just because its politically convenient to call them liars.0 -
If you're saying you believe that farrago of lies you're only making yourself look ridiculous.Philip_Thompson said:
The Cummings story is the truth unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which there isn't.kinabalu said:
You were laughed at for swallowing the Cummings story hook line & sinker.Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.
My default assumption is not to say everyone is lying just because its politically convenient to call them liars.0 -
It is a straightforward lie to say the police statement clears Cummings of wrongdoing.BluestBlue said:
What court? He's not going to court, so that's completely irrelevant.DougSeal said:
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Durham Police “do not consider” the trio to have breached the rules. A court may consider differently.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.
Will you and @Philip_Thompson please stop implying that a police force “not considering” something is not the same as clearing them of it. It is disingenuous rubbish from partisan hacks with no legal knowledge whatsoever. An apology for getting this so badly wrong from the two of you would be in order.
Do you think jumping up and down is going to change the reality of the police statement, which is that Cummings did nothing wrong and no further action is going to be taken against him? Because it won't.
Should I post a copy of it?0 -
No I said innocent until proven guilty.DougSeal said:
Who has said it was legal? You said repeatedly that only a court could decide that.Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.
A court can convict but it has to get there to be a conviction. The Police and CPS can decide someone is innocent by not passing it on, they can't convict (though the Police can issue Fixed Penalty Notices).1 -
I'm sure Blackford cares deeply indeed about what this anonymous random called @BluestBlue thinks about himBluestBlue said:
Since when does the Prime Minister take orders from that flatulent fantasist?Scott_xP said:
0 -
The main movement since the GE has been LD to Labour, there has been barely any net shift from Tory to Labour.
Hence the Tories still on 44% with Yougov, the Labour vote up to 38% but the LD vote down to just 6%2 -
What? The criminal courts will only consider something if it is brought to them by the police ( and then only if the CPS think it is likely to get a conviction). If you are not even charged with something then there is nothing (criminal) to be cleared of.DougSeal said:
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Durham Police “do not consider” the trio to have breached the rules. A court may consider differently.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.
Will you and @Philip_Thompson please stop implying that a police force “not considering” something is not the same as clearing them of it. It is disingenuous rubbish from partisan hacks with no legal knowledge whatsoever. An apology for getting this so badly wrong from the two of you would be in order.
Your attitude would mean anyone who was ever accused of anything would be regarded as potentially having done it unless they had actually been in court and got a not guilty verdict.
Edit: missing ) inserted.2 -
A private prosecution and a nolle prosequi would be the cherry on the cake.BluestBlue said:
Private prosecution or private persecution? I'm sure you know what the words 'nolle prosequi' mean.DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:0 -
The CPS don’t need the police say so to prosecute and a private prosecution is possible. In any event your smear of the Secret Barrister as partisan is laughable. He may be partisan but has legal knowledge. You are partisan and have absolutely none. He’s right as it happens.Philip_Thompson said:
Innocent until proven guilty.DougSeal said:
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Durham Police “do not consider” the trio to have breached the rules. A court may consider differently.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.
Will you and @Philip_Thompson please stop implying that a police force “not considering” something is not the same as clearing them of it. It is disingenuous rubbish from partisan hacks with no legal knowledge whatsoever. An apology for getting this so badly wrong from the two of you would be in order.
If the Police consider someone innocent then they are innocent under the law since it won't reach the court. If they consider someone guilty then they may pass it to the CPS, then they may pass it to the Courts but the Courts are the final arbiter not the first one.0 -
No. Where have I ever said one of them is lying with no evidence to the contrary?Daveyboy1961 said:
.....unless they're Labour/LibDem or SNP....Philip_Thompson said:
The Cummings story is the truth unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which there isn't.kinabalu said:
You were laughed at for swallowing the Cummings story hook line & sinker.Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.
My default assumption is not to say everyone is lying just because its politically convenient to call them liars.
I can believe they're wrong on something but that's totally different. I don't assume the other side are lying, I believe they're mistaken as they're ignorant about economics primarily.0 -
Point of order: His official moniker is the Boffin' Boffin.Monkeys said:The bonking scientist and the scottish woman didn't have to go either. They folded to journalism. There was no reason to, they're not even politicians.
The bonking scientist thought he was immune!
2 -
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?RobD said:
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?eek said:
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"RobD said:
No they didn't, see their statement.Carnyx said:0 -
He's wrong and Durham Police are right.DougSeal said:
The CPS don’t need the police say so to prosecute and a private prosecution is possible. In any event your smear of the Secret Barrister as partisan is laughable. He may be partisan but has legal knowledge. You are partisan and have absolutely none. He’s right as it happens.Philip_Thompson said:
Innocent until proven guilty.DougSeal said:
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Durham Police “do not consider” the trio to have breached the rules. A court may consider differently.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.
Will you and @Philip_Thompson please stop implying that a police force “not considering” something is not the same as clearing them of it. It is disingenuous rubbish from partisan hacks with no legal knowledge whatsoever. An apology for getting this so badly wrong from the two of you would be in order.
If the Police consider someone innocent then they are innocent under the law since it won't reach the court. If they consider someone guilty then they may pass it to the CPS, then they may pass it to the Courts but the Courts are the final arbiter not the first one.
If Secret Barrister wants to launch a private prosecution then go ahead, he/she should put their name to it and get on with it. Lets see how far it gets, that would be amusing.1 -
kettle.....pot....black....Philip_Thompson said:
No. Where have I ever said one of them is lying with no evidence to the contrary?Daveyboy1961 said:
.....unless they're Labour/LibDem or SNP....Philip_Thompson said:
The Cummings story is the truth unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which there isn't.kinabalu said:
You were laughed at for swallowing the Cummings story hook line & sinker.Philip_Thompson said:FPT Cummings didn't break the law with the Durham trip, he's been cleared of that. The Barnhard Castle trip might have or might not have but was so minor we will never know.
I was laughed at here by many people for accepting the Durham trip as legal but I was right, they were wrong, and I have been vindicated for my view. Who has the humility to apologise?
Time will roll on and the Tories will be judged at the next election by how good or bad a job they do over the next 4 years. As they should be. If Dom helps them do a good job then keeping him will win more votes in the long run.
My default assumption is not to say everyone is lying just because its politically convenient to call them liars.
I can believe they're wrong on something but that's totally different. I don't assume the other side are lying, I believe they're mistaken as they're ignorant about economics primarily.0 -
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?RobD said:
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?eek said:
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"RobD said:
No they didn't, see their statement.Carnyx said:0 -
I break the law in spirit and letter all the time but would enjoy Scummings getting the tin tack.Nigelb said:I see Cummings has succeeded in brining another part of the British state into disrepute with a large proportion of the electorate.
That other admirer of Lenin, John McDonnell, must be quite envious.
Where does @Dura_Ace stand on this ?
Lenin would have dispensed with him without mercy. Johnson is no V.I. Ulyanov and I mean that as damning criticism.0 -
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????Flatlander said:
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!
0 -
I think that's just what automatically comes out of his phone on predictive text.Luckyguy1983 said:1 -
IMO there are four issues: One, the only legal test (ignored by almost everyone) is: was there a reasonable excuse at the time of leaving the (London) home for Durham. There is no full list of reasonable excuses, only examples (Sec 6). To consider the action as legally culpable there has to be a realistic chance of conviction on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. DC gave us lots of reasonable excuses (at least three I think) so, if you think he might possibly be telling the truth an acquittal would be likely.Chris said:Just trying to be serious for a moment (I know, I know - but let's see what happens).
The police are saying there may have been a minor breach of the regulations regarding the day trip to Barnard Castle, but they don't consider there was regarding the journey from London to Durham.
Of course the police have jurisidiction only over the regulations about leaving home, not over the guidance on self-isolation.
Does anyone have a serious opinion on why the police would have decided the trip to Durham didn't infringe the regulations? The "risk of harm" provision?
Because if that is what they decided, then that implies that provision covers an extremely wide range of circumstances, in which the risk of harm can be extremely hypothetical. I think that interpretation, if shared by other authorities, would make a dead letter of the regulations.
Two; I don't think there is case law on what is a 'reasonable excuse' in this particular regulation. By and large they may not have thought this is the best place to start making it.
Three; (an oddity) in the trip from London to Durham allegation any offence actually was committed in London (Met jurisdiction), the place where he left his home, not Durham. Has anyone noticed this?
Four, around this time millions of people, including most students were 'moving house' ie from one residence at college/uni back home. This was medically questionable but no-one questioned it much legally at the time, and IIRC the advice was that this was OK. DC was 'moving house' - specifically allowed for 'where reasonably necessary' in Section 6.0 -
Lord above.
Not more Cummings chat.
Somebody make it stop.2 -
Well we will find out, he's good at winning elections and referendums and the initial speech where Boris set out his plans hit the right spot for yourself, myself and many others. I feel the government had a clear plan prior to the pandemic for dealing with public spending, Brexit and regional inequality - and Cummings would have had a big input in that. Covid has made things a lot trickier but if Cummings resigned then Boris would have been a hostage to fortune and perhaps swayed by the media and other political forces to renege on his course of action.DecrepiterJohnL said:
I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.Brom said:
Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.DecrepiterJohnL said:Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?
A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.
PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay
I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.
This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.
What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.
Boris and Cummings together along with Sunak,Raab and Gove will in my opinion be good for delivering on election promises and reshaping the country to reflect the wants of 2019 Conservative voters and many others. Some opposition voters may not want that but surely no one on either side who cares about their country wants another Theresa May style premiership - a government without purpose, direction, decisiveness, leadership, a backbone and the ability to get anything through parliament.1 -
Why would they have turned him back and warned him about the dangers of travelling if it wasnt a breach?Philip_Thompson said:
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?RobD said:
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?eek said:
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"RobD said:
No they didn't, see their statement.Carnyx said:0 -
You need to read the full police statement, Philip, and preferably with a knowledge of how the police communicate, and of the division of responsibilities between the police and the courts. If you do this, and apply the relevant knowledge, you will form an appropriate conclusion. And it will be the same as mine.Philip_Thompson said:
Give it up now. So I'll fine you under "don't have humility to acknowledge was wrong".DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:
I mistakenly admitted I was wrong in the last thread when journalists lied and said that the Barnhard Castle was a breach I put my hands up and admitted I'd called that one wrong. Then the truth came out and it was "might". Nevermind.
So I have more humility and grace than you. Oh well.0 -
It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home. Even if he’s not breached the law, he’s breached the guidance, unlike millions of others
0 -
@Philip_Thompson
Hi Philip
Do you believe Cummings story about the Castle expedition? I mean do you, personally, actually believe he was telling the truth?0 -
Defending a case that the police didn’t think worth prosecuting would probably be one of the easier jobs a barrister ever got.DougSeal said:
The CPS don’t need the police say so to prosecute and a private prosecution is possible. In any event your smear of the Secret Barrister as partisan is laughable. He may be partisan but has legal knowledge. You are partisan and have absolutely none. He’s right as it happens.Philip_Thompson said:
Innocent until proven guilty.DougSeal said:
Absolutely not. Completely wrong. Durham Police “do not consider” the trio to have breached the rules. A court may consider differently.BluestBlue said:And now Durham Police have confirmed what some of us were saying from the start: the journey to Durham WAS LEGAL and a minor breach would have been committed at Barnard Castle ONLY IF he had refused to follow police advice, which was never given anyway.
Game, set, and match to the non-frothers.
On topic: a smaller polling lead should hopefully give recalcitrant Tory MPs the kick up the backside they need to finally pass the boundary changes to correct any accumulated electoral unfairness.
Will you and @Philip_Thompson please stop implying that a police force “not considering” something is not the same as clearing them of it. It is disingenuous rubbish from partisan hacks with no legal knowledge whatsoever. An apology for getting this so badly wrong from the two of you would be in order.
If the Police consider someone innocent then they are innocent under the law since it won't reach the court. If they consider someone guilty then they may pass it to the CPS, then they may pass it to the Courts but the Courts are the final arbiter not the first one.1 -
Fear not, I think we're approaching a climax.Anabobazina said:Lord above.
Not more Cummings chat.
Somebody make it stop.1 -
Why don't the gutter press just rifle through his bins and have done with it? Maybe he did something _really_ serious, like mix up his recycling...DougSeal said:It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home. Even if he’s not breached the law, he’s breached the guidance, unlike millions of others
0 -
"If Boris had gone for an election in early January the next general election would have been May 2025"
Technical point: had the election been in Jan 2020 (v unlikely given the difficulties of campaigning over Xmas), the next GE would still have been May 2024 under the FTPA.
There's a provision that if an election is in Jan-Apr, then the following election is in the May *four* years hence. Presumably, this is to avoid a parliament running longer than five years.0 -
That's just sheer invention.Philip_Thompson said:
They explain in their statement, they would have needed more information but because its so minor they're not investigating further. Therefore they're not in a position to judge either way.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Why didn't they say "was NOT a breach"?RobD said:
Why would they use that rather than "was" if there was a breach?eek said:
It seems a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding on what the police mean in their use of "might"RobD said:
No they didn't, see their statement.Carnyx said:
This is what they really said about Barnard Castle:
"Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
"In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.0 -
That's exactly how Adam Boulton gets so fatBluestBlue said:
Why don't the gutter press just rifle through his bins and have done with it?DougSeal said:It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home. Even if he’s not breached the law, he’s breached the guidance, unlike millions of others
0 -
The majority of the public will not give a toss about the detail of police investigations they just feel let down that the man who told everybody else to stay at home didn’t. It’s best left now as it’s not at the moment the biggest issue to be dealt when focus should be on the lockdown relaxation and what appears from a distance to be somewhat unstructured.1
-
The next four years will show why Cummings is an asset.DecrepiterJohnL said:
I've backed both sides, and would like Cummings and Boris to stay provided they stick to the anti-austerity, pro-investment platform on which they won the last election -- by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, as I've often expressed it.Brom said:
Perhaps some of those convinced he had to go will take advantage of these generous odds unless they have changed their minds of course.DecrepiterJohnL said:Will Cummings still be in position on 1st June?
A big jump in the betting following the Durham statement.
PP/Betfair: 4/1 go, 1/7 stay
Ladbrokes: 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Starsports: 7/2 go, 1/6 stay
I don't admire Cummings action but I do think Boris has been astute in accepting short term polling pain for long term gain. If Dom had gone there is no suggesting the polling would have changed direction and then the government would have been considerably weaker at least until he is reappointed.
This saga has weakened Boris slightly but perhaps it has weakened his enemies in the media a little bit more. As I suggested Pippa Crear and co just lacked a little bit more evidence and overplayed their hand slightly.
What mystifies me is what in the past two months makes Cummings' supporters believe he is an asset. What exactly is it that Britain has done better than any other country? It seems to me some PB Tories are so caught up in cheering for their side against Remoaners and the MSM that they've forgotten to ask themselves if Cummings is actually any good.
The assassins have failed.
There will be concern now in the BBC. The wider media. And especially in the Civil Service. After all, Cummings had the temerity to unravel the nice little stitch-up of a two year Brexit extension with Brussels, done whilst Boris was out the loop in hospital.
There's going to be quite a reckoning for that. Because Cummings is now bomb-proof.1 -
Four hours ago someone here compared him with Ian Huntley. At that point I decided to log off and do something useful instead.NerysHughes said:
As I said earlier this site has gone mad, the police have confirmed that his trip to Durham to self isolate was fine and no offence has been committed. His trip to the Castle might have been a minor breach, thats it, so far less than speeding and even far less than a parking ticket. Yet some on this site said that this was the biggest story of the past 20 years, even bigger than 9/11. For something less than a parking ticket????Flatlander said:
Can you bring a private prosecution for the equivalent of a parking ticket?DougSeal said:
Let’s wait for the court’s decision after the inevitable private prosecution shall we?Philip_Thompson said:
Garbage by a vindictive partisan with an axe to grind who called this wrong earlier. They don't follow the might with that, if you read the paragraph with your own eyes they follow the might with asking for more information from Cummings which they haven't done as it's too minor.Scott_xP said:
We could all become traffic wardens. Just think of the fun!2 -
We do know this is a political scandal don't we not a legal one? The likely sanction was always at most a £30 FPN. We all know that the "instructions" issued by ManCock as co-drafted by Cummings didn't allow for driving half the country with the pox nor taking the missus out for a birthday jaunt.
Yes we have seen various normals shown up for doing stupid and all have the same legal penalties potentially applicable to them. The *only* person stuck politically for hypocrisy is the man who wrote the "instructions" he then chose to ignore then cover up.
Whatever. I know that BluestBlue is probably on his 5th bout of onanism today and thats great, but out there in the real world where people don't follow every last nuance and nitpick to death, the clear sense is one rule for us one rule for them. Hence the polls collapse and the daily kickings by the Tory press. And no amount of desperate spinning on hear will change that.1 -
Is there a provision in the regulations that would make it legal to travel to a second home? I don't see one.DougSeal said:It appears he owns the cottage he self isolated in - making it his second home. Even if he’s not breached the law, he’s breached the guidance, unlike millions of others
0 -
That's only true if you look at the pictures on 12/12/19 and now. It's not true if you look at the movements in between.HYUFD said:The main movement since the GE has been LD to Labour, there has been barely any net shift from Tory to Labour.
Hence the Tories still on 44% with Yougov, the Labour vote up to 38% but the LD vote down to just 6%0 -
The Durham police's ambiguity on the Cummings saga probably doesn't help Boris - smacks of the authorities giving leeway to the high and mighty which they'd never entertain if the culprit was a peasant. Cummings is very much a shrunken figure now in Last Chance Saloon. Surely even Boris wouldn't be stupid enough to keep him on if there are any more debacles like this.0
