The Dominic Cummings Appreciation Society.

Tactically in political terms, the best time would be probably the weekend, the effective start of next weeks news cycle. Having allowed people to shout, make up imaginative alternative timelines and act like absolute fools throughout the week.

If you wanted evidence the fact that maitlis was bumped off newsnight. The BBC and kuenessberg were clearly certain and are now not at all sure of the evidence and a counter attack means its time to batten down the hatches. You can see it with the guardian leader and the word 'potentially'....
What evidence do you think exists showing that Cummings trip to BC was lawful? Because it’s being kept secret, I’m at a loss. Surely BJ would have thought about sharing it with Durham Police in confidence to clarify matters.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
An advanced driving check drive, at the end of a 5 week course doesn’t extend to much more than about 30 to 40 miles. A drive out for 10 minutes would have been sufficient, with his family at home. He had to stop, because he was unwell and his child needed a lag, that didn’t need to happen.

A 10 minute spin out, would have probably passed muster.
So, you are saying he should have driven faster?
 
I Googled "Mr. Cummings did break the law."
First page
Daily Telegraph."Dominic Cummings has been a victim of persecution and did not break the law"
The Independant "He might have broken the law"
The Metro Quoting Gavin Williamson "Dominic Cummings broke no law"
So who to believe?
Who to believe? All the Arrse Legal Eagles (ALE) of course. Or Durham Police who have amended their position to ’a minor infraction - no action will be taken’.

Clearly the ALE people know better and the death sentence should have been Handed down some days ago.
 
Are you saying that a ten minute drive for the same reason would have been ok but a 15 minute drive wouldn’t have been Inspector?



No doubt there is something in the poorly drafted legislation that was voted through without proper scrutiny or ability that has some reference to acceptable distances to drive in the circumstances put forward.
His journey appears to have been viewed as unlawful with NFA. Cummings can now challenge that if he feels that he wants to, he and BJ have the evidence to refute this, hopefully we can see it or have it independently verified.
 
What evidence do you think exists showing that Cummings trip to BC was lawful? Because it’s being kept secret, I’m at a loss. Surely BJ would have thought about sharing it with Durham Police in confidence to clarify matters.
1. Durham Police just stated that the drive to durham was legal.
2. Durham police did suggest the BC trip was a minor infraction i.e. anyone out is an infraction that has to be justified. But also added that social distancing was obeyed and essentially accepted his narrative (presumably based on some evidence).
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
What evidence do you think exists showing that Cummings trip to BC was lawful? Because it’s being kept secret, I’m at a loss. Surely BJ would have thought about sharing it with Durham Police in confidence to clarify matters.
Ah, here we are again. He has to prove his innocence now does he? How long do you think that the Durham police will wait before issuing yet another statement? Smoke and mirrors eh - good police work?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
His journey appears to have been viewed as unlawful with NFA. Cummings can now challenge that if he feels that he wants to, he and BJ have the evidence to refute this, hopefully we can see it or have it independently verified.
This is great, keep it up. Hugely enjoying myself.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
His journey appears to have been viewed as unlawful with NFA. Cummings can now challenge that if he feels that he wants to, he and BJ have the evidence to refute this, hopefully we can see it or have it independently verified.
Except you missed out this bit, "might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention". So not viewed as unlawful at all. I'm also pretty sure Cummings doesn't really need to challenge an NFA other than it it could stop you insinuating things.
 
Ah, here we are again. He has to prove his innocence now does he? How long do you think that the Durham police will wait before issuing yet another statement? Smoke and mirrors eh - good police work?
No evidence found that cummings narrative is bollox, the police merely recognising the fact that anyone out on april 11th, should have a reason.... As such what he told the PM is in the clear and the media are all adjusting to the fact that they're have being pumping out fake news pretty much all week.
 
1. Durham Police just stated that the drive to durham was legal.
2. Durham police did suggest the BC trip was a minor infraction i.e. anyone out is an infraction that has to be justified. But also added that social distancing was obeyed and essentially accepted his narrative (presumably based on some evidence).
I am now happy that the trip to Durham has been assessed as lawful. I am also happy that the trip to BC has been assessed as unlawful, with NFA.

Not everyone out is an infraction, that is an incorrect statement. Cummings trip to BC was what we always thought it was. Not serious, but not what Cummings tried to say it was.
 
His journey appears to have been viewed as unlawful with NFA. Cummings can now challenge that if he feels that he wants to, he and BJ have the evidence to refute this, hopefully we can see it or have it independently verified.
Good swerve Inspector.

You said a ten minute jaunt ‘would probably pass muster‘ but in another post, railed against a thirty minute drive. Which bit of the legislation makes one 'probably acceptable' but the other a heinous flouting of the rules?
 
Ah, here we are again. He has to prove his innocence now does he? How long do you think that the Durham police will wait before issuing yet another statement? Smoke and mirrors eh - good police work?
Cummings doesn’t have to do anything. Durham Police have made a very sensible decision.

Why would BJ and Cummings not reply, given that BJ states that he has seen evidence to refute that?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I am now happy that the trip to Durham has been assessed as lawful. I am also happy that the trip to BC has been assessed as unlawful, with NFA.
The first part of the quote only comes about because of the second part. If Durham Plod had not issued their smoke and mirrors statement today there is no way you would have written that first bit.
 
Except you missed out this bit, "might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention". So not viewed as unlawful at all. I'm also pretty sure Cummings doesn't really need to challenge an NFA other than it it could stop you insinuating things.
How is a minor breach of the regulations not unlawful. It’s been decided that NFA is appropriate, I agree with that, it’s not in the public interest.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
How is a minor breach of the regulations not unlawful. It’s been decided that NFA is appropriate, I agree with that, it’s not in the public interest.
Do you understand what the word might means? it's not the first time you've struggled to read my posts.
 
I am now happy that the trip to Durham has been assessed as lawful. I am also happy that the trip to BC has been assessed as unlawful, with NFA.

Not everyone out is an infraction, that is an incorrect statement. Cummings trip to BC was what we always thought it was. Not serious, but not what Cummings tried to say it was.
Read what they're said, that it would have warranted police intervention.... Back on april 11th, any vehicle on the road would have warranted police intervention and if you were that officer, then your advice in another post was to keep the drive down to 10-15 minutes sir and maybe turned him around, but not fined him given his explaination for the drive and his intention to drive to london the two days later.
 
Good swerve Inspector.

You said a ten minute jaunt ‘would probably pass muster‘ but in another post, railed against a thirty minute drive. Which bit of the legislation makes one 'probably acceptable' but the other a heinous flouting of the rules?
I’m n
Do you understand what the word might means? it's not the first time you've struggled to read my posts.
The police are not the courts and don’t find people guilty. The process of law if activated will come to a conclusion. Cummings has evidence that he can now produce. I’m waiting, but not holding my breath.
 

Latest Threads

Top