OT Cummings Press Statement

[mistaram]

.........he once comported with Satan, he encouraged a hen to steal 6 ears of corn, he encouraged sheep to urinate in the drinking water, send him to Salem for trial or send Jaime Ramón Mercader del RÃ*o with an ice pick..............

Yes Swales is right 😊

[Geoff Parkstone]

[MadAmster]

So lets just consider what you and a significant portion of the country seem to want - he should be sacked. Now fortunately Adi here is in HR and so he can comment on the unfair dismissal action that would result. He can comment on how the precedent of no other public figure being dismissed for the same offence and so on.

At heart I'm with you, but it is totally unreasonable to single him out.

Would he have grounds for an unfair dismissal action? He would think so. Gove and Jenrick would be his saving grace. The others were "mere" opposition MPs. G & J are in the Cabinet. Jenrick being Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Gove is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster AND Minister for the Cabinet Office. Those two didn't go. With regard to the 4 Labour MPs and the 2 Tory ones, the worst thing that can happen to them is that they have the whip removed and have their party membership ended. The 2 Tories could lose their cabinet positions. All 6 of them would still be MPs. As GP suggested, that would work in his favour.

The general perception is that Cummings is partly, or even wholly, responsible for creating the lockdown rules. That's a whole new bag of worms. He is definitely the "slogan writer". The government could argue, and IMO win that argument, that having the (joint?) creator of the rules breaking those rules undermines the government, opens up the huge chance that Joe and Joanne Public will think they can do the same and is thus a "crime" reasonably punished by sacking.

[AdiSalisbury]

But you see it isnt just about his guilt or otherwise. he has admitted to lockdown breaches, and made excuses, plausible or not.

What it is about is the punishment for those transgressions. Some like you want his head, regardless of the total lack of precedent for that in the entire history of breaches of lockdown. It is entirely appropriate to consider an appropriate punishment in the light of the severity of his actions and when compared to actions taken against others gulity of breaches.

Coventry, Brexit etc are, I agree, not overly relevant, but what is relevant is the fairness of his punishment, and that HAS to be considered in the light of punishments handed out to others equally guilty.This is not a criminal offence, its civil and so has to be reasonable in the circumstances.

So lets just consider what you and a significant portion of the country seem to want - he should be sacked. Now fortunately Adi here is in HR and so he can comment on the unfair dismissal action that would result. He can comment on how the precedent of no other public figure being dismissed for the same offence and so on.

At heart I'm with you, but it is totally unreasonable to single him out. All of them should have been booted at the time the breaches were apparent, but its too late to do a U turn now and reopen all the other cases. As a so called liberal, surely you have to accept the iniquity of treating people differently for similar offences? Sure, he was involved in making the rules, and so should have set a better example to help enforce lockdown, but two months later how does it help NOW to take an action and create a martyr!

Sorry mate I don't care enough to have taken any notice of the tell tales to know the details. Politician is a hypocrite, stop the press?

[swaledale]

Sorry mate I don't care enough to have taken any notice of the tell tales to know the details. Politician is a hypocrite, stop the press?

Except Cummings isn't a politician! Also are all politicians hypocrites? They are certainly all human, many I believe are sincere, Johnson is obviously not one of them!

By and large the voters get the politicians and government they deserve, if they had one who told them the truth not many would vote for him or her, thats the way it is!

[ramAnag]

Well, thank God for that.
Posts 76 & 77 just go to show that common sense and social conscience haven’t been completely abandoned on this forum.

[mistaram]

But you see it isnt just about his guilt or otherwise. he has admitted to lockdown breaches, and made excuses, plausible or not.

What it is about is the punishment for those transgressions. Some like you want his head, regardless of the total lack of precedent for that in the entire history of breaches of lockdown. It is entirely appropriate to consider an appropriate punishment in the light of the severity of his actions and when compared to actions taken against others gulity of breaches.

Coventry, Brexit etc are, I agree, not overly relevant, but what is relevant is the fairness of his punishment, and that HAS to be considered in the light of punishments handed out to others equally guilty.This is not a criminal offence, its civil and so has to be reasonable in the circumstances.

So lets just consider what you and a significant portion of the country seem to want - he should be sacked. Now fortunately Adi here is in HR and so he can comment on the unfair dismissal action that would result. He can comment on how the precedent of no other public figure being dismissed for the same offence and so on.

At heart I'm with you, but it is totally unreasonable to single him out. All of them should have been booted at the time the breaches were apparent, but its too late to do a U turn now and reopen all the other cases. As a so called liberal, surely you have to accept the iniquity of treating people differently for similar offences? Sure, he was involved in making the rules, and so should have set a better example to help enforce lockdown, but two months later how does it help NOW to take an action and create a martyr!

Geoff surely staying over night other than your home address could warrant some punishment That was still the law in 22-5 -2020

[Geoff Parkstone]

The Durham police don't seem to think so

[MadAmster]

The Durham police don't seem to think so

Police and think in the same sentence. Oxymoron?

.... only jesting. They don't think in this case. They state that his transgression was worthy of a "naughty boy, now turn round and go home but not worth a fine". That, apparently, is what the Law says on this. I can accept that. What I do have difficulty with, and am shocked that Durham police haven't looked at it, is his "test drive" with impaired vision. That is a traffic violation in itself. What, for me, makes it worse is that he compounded his error by putting his wife and son in the car, endangering their safety as well as that of himself and all other road users. Had it been you or I doing such a "test drive" of 30 miles there and another 30 back would we get away with it?

[Trickytreesreds]

Police and think in the same sentence. Oxymoron?

.... only jesting. They don't think in this case. They state that his transgression was worthy of a "naughty boy, now turn round and go home but not worth a fine". That, apparently, is what the Law says on this. I can accept that. What I do have difficulty with, and am shocked that Durham police haven't looked at it, is his "test drive" with impaired vision. That is a traffic violation in itself. What, for me, makes it worse is that he compounded his error by putting his wife and son in the car, endangering their safety as well as that of himself and all other road users. Had it been you or I doing such a "test drive" of 30 miles there and another 30 back would we get away with it?

Thing is Maddy, how do you look into it?
If his vision was impaired, I'm guessing we have to be talking about cold like symptoms?
Watery eyes for example?

But how do you follow up on that after an event?
I know he wears glasses, so must I assume wear them when driving.
That would mean he should/has declared that on his license?
You can hardly knock on someones door though, weeks later after an event for a post eye test.