Just watching Cummings live on TV

He said he sat down as he was feeling ill on his short walk following the trip.

Travel is permitted for work which he was planning to do the next day, if he could manage this short trip, think that was what he was saying as he limped it all in with you are allowed to drive to work. Surprised he couldn’t think of a better reason for travelling to BC than this though which perhaps makes it more plausible maybe?
 
No sincerity, no honesty, no consistency and an abject failure by the media present to ask the questions that mattered.

People who have obeyed the rules have been punished and Cummings and co have ridden roughshod over them, his defence was full of conceit and mockery, his refusal to apologise embarrassing and on Barnard Castle he jumped the shark with his explanation that a visit to a beauty spot that’s is not easily accessible from main roads on his wife’s birthday was a perfectly reasonable eye sight test absolutely pathetic, whatever your political persuasion if you genuinely think his actions were ok then it’s no wonder we are where we are with Covid 19.

The contrast between his narrative and the tale presented by his wife in The Spectator and on BBC Radio couldn’t be more obvious, he broke the guidelines and the exceptional circumstances were matters of ‘life or death’ not childcare preference and none essential journeys to ‘test your eyesight’.
 
Last edited:
gravy173 said:
He said he sat down as he was feeling ill on his short walk following the trip.

Travel is permitted for work which he was planning to do the next day, if he could manage this short trip, think that was what he was saying as he limped it all in with you are allowed to drive to work. Surprised he couldn’t think of a better reason for travelling to BC than this though which perhaps makes it more plausible maybe?
Click to expand...
A short walk following the trip? A trip he shouldn't have made and a trip in which he wasn't allowed to go for a walk.

There was nothing in the rules to say you could travel because you wanted to see if you could travel to work the next day. He was not travelling to work.
 
gravy173 said:
He said he sat down as he was feeling ill on his short walk following the trip.

Travel is permitted for work which he was planning to do the next day, if he could manage this short trip, think that was what he was saying as he limped it all in with you are allowed to drive to work. Surprised he couldn’t think of a better reason for travelling to BC than this though which perhaps makes it more plausible maybe?
Click to expand...

I can think of a better for reason for driving there. To get some fresh air and have a bit of a family outing (on his wife's birthday which I'm sure is just coincidence). Which is almost certainly what happened, but was also certainly against the rules.

Which is why he's had to fabricate this little fairytale of driving while unfit to do so and taking his wife and son with him too. Its actually worse, but of course isn't as obviously breaking the rules (either spirit or letter) which is the whole point.
 
festa5 said:
I can think of a better for reason for driving there. To get some fresh air and have a bit of a family outing (on his wife's birthday which I'm sure is just coincidence). Which is almost certainly what happened, but was also certainly against the rules.

Which is why he's had to fabricate this little fairytale of driving while unfit to do so and taking his wife and son with him too. Its actually worse, but of course isn't as obviously breaking the rules (either spirit or letter) which is the whole point.
Click to expand...
It's breaking the letter of the law that stood at the time. The spirit of the law was social distancing, which he probaby didn't break, but most of us have kept to the letter and the spirit of the law
 
Ziggy said:
Lawyer and writer, David Allen Green on twitter having got hold of a copy of the statement claims the whole thing's been "lawyered" down to every last dot and comma. Prepared more like a witness statement, and bears no resemblance to Cummings other writing and his blog.
Click to expand...
It did come across just like that.
 
dooderooni said:
Well, I'm going to start drinking again and if I'm ever pulled over I'll just tell the officer that I was unsure if I was fit to drive, but thought I'd go out for a drive to test out my theory. Wonder how far I'd get with that excuse or how much sympathy I'd get?
Click to expand...
Have you stopped drinking?!
 
bear66 said:
I hope the lawyer wasn't paid out of the public purse as that would be illegal.
Click to expand...
Can almost hear Boris saying that he has 🐝 n informed that no public money has been mis-used on any legal matters pertaining to Dominic's Cummings and Goings.
 
What I'm finding the hardest to wrap my head around is, surely the PM launching an inquiry into this would have been the most effective way to kick the story into the long grass.

Every question could the be simply answered by every minister using that. Not doing it makes me believe that he's done so much more that the results of an inquiry down the line would be more damaging than whats happening now.

🤔
 
So he’d had symptoms of Covid-19, but still had issues with his eyesight? Surely under the guidance he should have still been self isolating, as the only symptom they say you can ignore after 7 days is a cough?

Then, after driving to Barnard Castle to “test his eyesight” he felt ill, so had to go for a short walk and then sit down on a bench (presumably still due to illness). Again, under the guidance that would mean that he should still be self isolating, so shouldn’t have been out and about in the first place and shouldn’t have driven back to London the following day in order to return to work.

I know the whole thing is a lie, but even if you accept it at face value he’s broken the rules.
 
I have just read the guidelines. Cummins broke the law when he travelled to Durham. He again, broke the law when he travelled to Barnard Castle.

The legislation is unequivocal. He is allowed to leave the home to access childcare - this is the extract:

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);


Neither his 17 year old neice nor his sister are a critical public service. Even if they were, one parent or the other could make the trip, not both.

Why are so many people swallowing this crap?
 
Laughing said:
I have just read the guidelines. Cummins broke the law when he travelled to Durham. He again, broke the law when he travelled to Barnard Castle.

The legislation is unequivocal. He is allowed to leave the home to access childcare - this is the extract:

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);


Neither his 17 year old neice nor his sister are a critical public service. Even if they were, one parent or the other could make the trip, not both.

Why are so many people swallowing this crap?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is, no matter what they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top