The Dominic Cummings Appreciation Society.

It's beyond rule breaking - it's about the nation's perception of the situation: Arrogant individual does what they can't.

We can't blame the media entirely either- opinion has moved against him despite the car crash conference yesterday: The answers he gave were unedited and he showed little contrition.
Nope. No punishment without law, it’s a basic premise of a democracy.

Im glad he’s stuck to his guns, refused to apologised and refused to resign, it displays moral courage, which is usually severely lacking in today’s society.

Opinion is fück all, a couple of weeks ago the media moved against a Robert Jenrick, all forgotten now, this will be forgotten in a few weeks time when it’s someone else’s turn to feed the media frenzy.
 
Nope. No punishment without law, it’s a basic premise of a democracy.

Im glad he’s stuck to his guns, refused to apologised and refused to resign, it displays moral courage, which is usually severely lacking in today’s society.

Opinion is fück all, a couple of weeks ago the media moved against a Robert Jenrick, all forgotten now, this will be forgotten in a few weeks time when it’s someone else’s turn to feed the media frenzy.
I didn't mention recrimination or punishment and I wouldn't be so sure about it being forgotten anytime soon.
 
I don’t bet with people who lack integrity.
You're all pish and wind then.

Like many on here, you're not quite willing to put your money where your mouth is. And then question my integrity <Belly Laughs all round>
 
I have repeatedly said, that this isn’t a police or law matter,
Ahhh, so there’s no issue then. He didn’t break the rules, therefore did nothing wrong.

Yet you think it acceptable to hang the man at a perceived wrong.

The court of public opinion is usually quite wrong, generally through their ignorance, you must have seen this many times as a police officer.

Have you arrested anyone and they said “go and arrest some real criminals”? Did you apologise and say “you’re quite right” and let them go? Of course you didn’t, because you were confident in your actions.

DC had a situation, he looked at the rules, he interpreted them to his advantage. Many, many people do this in everyday life and I’m not just talking about CV19.
 
You're all pish and wind then.

Like many on here, you're not quite willing to put your money where your mouth is. And then question my integrity <Belly Laughs all round>
Not at all, you’ve a propensity for lying and lack integrity. If I made a bet with you you’d either cheat or welch on the bet.

it couldn’t be a friendly bet because I view you as a disgraceful and disgusting person.

Therefore there’s no reason to proceed.
 
I've actually been surprised by the breadth of anger; I mean, as one of those remoaning tossers (who predicted no sacking / no resignation), you won't be at all surprised to find that I think Cummings is a weasel. But I was very surprised that one strongly Conservative friend and another UKIP-supporting friend were livid with him; I'd assumed that things would be roughly split along party lines.

Basically, his explanation is right up there with Oliver North's (if you're old enough), Jeffrey Archer's, or Jonathan Aitken's (if you're slightly younger). The Faithful lapped up the explanation, the rest of us went "aye, right...". At least he didn't make cheesy comments about the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play...

...and he's smart enough not to try and sue the papers for libel, because of the risk that they've got other evidence they could bring out in court (as Aitken discovered, as he headed off at Her Majesty's Pleasure).
The cross party anger doesn't surprise me at all, because people have far too much pent up anger and cummings is a pop up target, that all those people have just unloaded on. A psychiatrist would probably argue a lot of this is projecting their own pent up anger onto him, like a football match with one player being singled out.

Do I think cummings narrative is the absolute truth ? probably not, but until such time as its proven otherwise I tend to lean with whoever is lined up against a mob.
 
Wets would believe anything that is abtinBoriscin any way.

Some people are so quick to forget how accurate these pollsters are during elections. Oh they're not? What a surprise!
Polling can be made accurate, when all the mathematical weighting is applied. I merely highlighted the pop up variety of polling which only taps specific demographics is notoriously inaccurate and also its in response to a still live news story, you find people are heavily influenced by the general view being peddled by the media.

Like our own lives, the day and week after an incident we respond singularly and without any real reflection. Over months is where your opinions either harden, or change. The government is always about to fail, until it pulls a rabbit out of its hat.

On the story, I have never particularly supported the full lockdown and thought it was far too draconian, so cummings actions never really bothered me all that much and given his narrative, children and a panicking wife is always a complicating factor.
 
I was about to post the tweets at the bottom as very relevant when I noticed this scoop just tweeted by Patrick:

View attachment 476880
This may go some way to explaining the timing of some resignations by remainers.



View attachment 476875
View attachment 476876
View attachment 476877
Shocking and two things come to mind:-
1. Cummings really is a firewall and reminds me of Dorothy Wainwright the tough lady in 'yes minister' who knew all the CS tricks and manipulations and is crucial to the minister to avoid political pitfalls such as a brexit sell out.
2. I find it commendable that cummings has enough public spirit to avoid the easy route out and simply resign. Equally the PM deserves enormous credit for standing up to the mob.

Outside of the CService, these 40 odd MPs are flushed out and their political careers are now dead.
 
Well, it is the BBC's job after all...
I was impressed with the BBC's impartiality on the 10 o'clock news last night - lead with a special report lauding 'our 'eroes' in the NHS then segue neatly into a Cummings-bashing marathon with a poll of about a dozen vox-poppers and half the Clapham omnibus.

If it wasn't so brazen it would be quite amusing.
 
Not at all, you’ve a propensity for lying and lack integrity. If I made a bet with you you’d either cheat or welch on the bet.
But you're unable to give any examples because you're all pish and wind.
it couldn’t be a friendly bet because I view you as a disgraceful and disgusting person.
My winnings, and they would have been, would have gone straight to the RNLI.
Therefore there’s no reason to proceed.
Because you're all pish and wind.

Your response is a fine example of the gobshitery that abounds on arse now. You make accusations that you're unable to backup but it appears you're happy to believe that a guy with covid symptoms drove to Barnard Castle on his wife's birthday to test his fecking eyesight though.

Cheers @Pish & Wind
 
I was impressed with the BBC's impartiality on the 10 o'clock news last night - lead with a special report lauding 'our 'eroes' in the NHS then segue neatly into a Cummings-bashing marathon with a poll of about a dozen vox-poppers and half the Clapham omnibus.

If it wasn't so brazen it would be quite amusing.
Sadly true. If they spread it about a bit it wouldn't come across as quite so blatant and embarrassing.
 
The cross party anger doesn't surprise me at all, because people have far too much pent up anger and cummings is a pop up target, that all those people have just unloaded on. A psychiatrist would probably argue a lot of this is projecting their own pent up anger onto him, like a football match with one player being singled out.

Do I think cummings narrative is the absolute truth ? probably not, but until such time as its proven otherwise I tend to lean with whoever is lined up against a mob.
That internet psychiatry diploma comes in handy doesn't it?
 
Sadly true. If they spread it about a bit it wouldn't come across as quite so blatant and embarrassing.
Unfortunately with their mindset, as with some EU bigwigs, the solution seems to be to double down - anything else would dilute their message
 
It a blessing the majority have people like you to tell them what they're thinking, guv'nor.
It's a blessing that the majority have a spokesman such as yourself.
 
You’re a police officer, what rule/law did he break?
Perhaps you could point out where a "reasonable excuse" is described to include a 60 mile drive to test your eyesight.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
Made at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Laid before Parliament at 2.30 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Coming into force at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020

Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a) to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b )to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c) to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;
(d ) to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;
(e) to donate blood;
(f) to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(g) to attend a funeral of—
(i) a member of the person’s household,
(ii) a close family member, or
(iii) if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;
(h) to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;
(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);
(j) in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;
(k) in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;
(l) to move house where reasonably necessary;
(m )to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

 

Latest Threads

Top