The Dominic Cummings Appreciation Society.

I'm surprised he’s there at all if he’s not “official!”
Let’s try again...
  • Is Cummings a government official or a temporary civil servant acting as an adviser to to government official?
  • Is Cummings an appointed and participating member of SAGE or does he just sit in as an observer in his capacity as an adviser to a member of the government?
Your surprise or otherwise does not make your version of fact factual.
 
But, unless you know differently, neither has Durham Police said he does have a case to answer...

... or does ‘might have' mean ‘the guilty bastard definitely did’ in your red tinged world?
Durham Police have said he may have committed a minor infringement. You can be pedantic with the language but the bottom line is, he may have committed an offence.

whether he faces prosecution is a decision for the relevant authorities.

I’m just off for a trip out in my car to check my eyesight.

There is a precedent for being able to do that that I read about. A government minister said he had done it a few times. And then of course, Cummings has apparently done it as well.
 
Let’s try again...
  • Is Cummings a government official or a temporary civil servant acting as an adviser to to government official?
  • Is Cummings an appointed and participating member of SAGE or does he just sit in as an observer in his capacity as an adviser to a member of the government?
Your surprise or otherwise does not make your version of fact factual.
Does Cummings have a contract of employment?
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I never said they shouldn’t be held to account!
I do apologise, I appear to have missed your vehement denunciations of the miscreants in question. Would you kindly point me in the right direction?
 

Mr_Relaxed

War Hero
Durham Police have said he may have committed a minor infringement. You can be pedantic with the language but the bottom line is, he may have committed an offence.

whether he faces prosecution is a decision for the relevant authorities.

I’m just off for a trip out in my car to check my eyesight.

There is a precedent for being able to do that that I read about. A government minister said he had done it a few times. And then of course, Cummings has apparently done it as well.
He’s facing a Fixed Penalty Notice at most - he’s not facing jail time.

If this was a member of your staff, in your normal day job, would you sack him?

Because for those who would, Industrial Tribunals when all of this is over are going to be a sight to behold.
 
While they all deserve a good wrist slapping, unlike Cummings, none of them were acting in any official government capacity. Unlike Cummings, none of them were sitting on the SAGE committee and unlike Cummings, none of them were advising Johnson and working with him to help set out the lockdown rules!

Cummings knew precisely what the rules were because he helped write them and as a co-author, he had a personal responsibility for them and yet, he deliberately chose to ignore them. In terms of individual responsibility, Cummings should have been promoting the lockdown rules to the nation and setting an example, not flouting them!

To suggest that Cummings flagrant breach of the rules was on the same level and no worse than that committed by anybody else is entirely wrong. Cummings cannot have his cake and eat it while the rest of the nation are obliged to abide by the rules that he co-authored but that he appears to believe are a discretionary option for him to follow when he chooses to do so!
Fail at the first hurdle, so haven't bothered with the rest. He observed the committee, he didn't sit on it or have any impact on its findings or decisions
Try harder.
 
Durham Police have said he may have committed a minor infringement. You can be pedantic with the language but the bottom line is, he may have committed an offence.
Did Durham police say he had committed an offence or that he may have committed an offence?

No question of pedantry there Lefty. The words, 'did', 'didn’t' and 'may/might' each have completely different meanings.

‘May have‘ equally means 'may not have‘.
 
Does Cummings have a contract of employment?
Does it change the facts? He is a 'Temporary Civil Servant’...

Educate yourself Lefty

All Ministerial departments therefore have one or more Special Advisers (often abbreviated to "Spads") who are personal appointees of the Secretary of State but employed as temporary civil servants.
Although Special Advisers may attend meetings with outside organisations, and sometimes make speeches on behalf of their Ministers, they do not represent the Government in any formal sense.
 
I do apologise, I appear to have missed your vehement denunciations of the miscreants in question. Would you kindly point me in the right direction?
Post #1866
 
Does it change the facts? He is a 'Temporary Civil Servant’...

Educate yourself Lefty
He is an employee temporary or otherwise. It makes no difference. He will have contractual obligations set out that he will legally be expected to comply with. They may be set down or they may be of a nature that can’t be set down but will be expected of him. Legally, he is a servant expected to do what his employer expects him to do.

If he’s told to attend SAGE, he will attend it. In whatever capacity he does attend it, as the chief advisor to the Prime Minister, he will no doubt convey the Prime Ministers views whatever they might be. That’s his job!
 
Fail at the first hurdle, so haven't bothered with the rest. He observed the committee, he didn't sit on it or have any impact on its findings or decisions
Try harder.
Well you can quote half of the sentence and change the meaning. That doesn’t change what I actually said.
 
He is an employee temporary or otherwise. It makes no difference. He will have contractual obligations set out that he will legally be expected to comply with. They may be set down or they may be of a nature that can’t be set down but will be expected of him. Legally, he is a servant expected to do what his employer expects him to do.

If he’s told to attend SAGE, he will attend it. In whatever capacity he does attend it, as the chief advisor to the Prime Minister, he will no doubt convey the Prime Ministers views whatever they might be. That’s his job!
Christ but that is an unintelligible and near incoherent waffle. As far as I can tell, none of it matches your earlier rant about his status in government or in Sage... by Jove, the reversocycle is in great demand these days.

Let us remind ourselves of your earlier ill informed rant shall we?

unlike Cummings, none of them were acting in any official government capacity. Unlike Cummings, none of them were sitting on the SAGE committee
 
Last edited:

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Post #1866
Re-read the post - all I saw was a notional nod to decency before rushing on to indulge your prejudices..

If Cummings should lose his job why should those above him in the political hierarchy and who've done worse keep theirs?
 
He’s facing a Fixed Penalty Notice at most - he’s not facing jail time.

If this was a member of your staff, in your normal day job, would you sack him?

Because for those who would, Industrial Tribunals when all of this is over are going to be a sight to behold.
The point is, unlike many on here are claiming, he may not be innocent. Whether the authorities want to pursue the matter with him is their decision.

I currently don’t employ anybody but if I did, it wouldn’t be a matter for me. I’m not the authorities.

Have you been to an employment tribunal recently. Most ordinary people can’t afford the charges that were imposed by the government several years ago so a lot of workplace grievances don’t get resolved these days.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Yes it does. You go off on a petulant ill informed rant, which is highlighted by the fact you can't even get the very basics correct.
Try harder.
There's a lot of it about lately. It's as if they backed the wrong horse or something.
 
Re-read the post - all I saw was a notional nod to decency before rushing on to indulge your prejudices..

If Cummings should lose his job why should those above him in the political hierarchy and who've done worse keep theirs?
I made that point clear in the post. I’m not going to rehash the same words again.
 
The point is, unlike many on here are claiming, he may not be innocent. Whether the authorities want to pursue the matter with him is their decision.

I currently don’t employ anybody but if I did, it wouldn’t be a matter for me. I’m not the authorities.

Have you been to an employment tribunal recently. Most ordinary people can’t afford the charges that were imposed by the government several years ago so a lot of workplace grievances don’t get resolved these days.
More utter crap. My daughter makes a good living defending employers at tribunals. How does that happen if noone can afford to go to them?
 
Durham Police have said he may have committed a minor infringement. You can be pedantic with the language but the bottom line is, he may have committed an offence.

whether he faces prosecution is a decision for the relevant authorities.

I’m just off for a trip out in my car to check my eyesight.

There is a precedent for being able to do that that I read about. A government minister said he had done it a few times. And then of course, Cummings has apparently done it as well.
Moon Nazis may have faked the moon landings, just because something may have happened doesn't mean it did happen....
 

Latest Threads

Top