O/T Disgrace Cummings

[crashbang]

I don't need to take a pill matey my eyes are wide feckin open .

You could always try defending your man ..... instead of but but Corbyn ..... but but Labour .

Almost all empires collapse from the inside .

Crack on Dom .

That's him cracked up 😂

[animallittle3]

That's him cracked up 😂

What's going over your head is that the rogue rule breaker and his feck the EU was a pretty descent strategy given the EU were running rings around Teresa May and she was getting short change in parliament with a minority government .

This pandemic has changed everything , suddenly sticking to the rules is the new common sense and doesn't sound quite so boring anymore .

The Cummings affair has clearly highlighted that , although Johnson can't see it .

This is no time for mavericks and shaking the dice and one trick Get Brexit Done ponies .

Even factoring all the variables the UK death toll is exceedingly high given the notice the government had .

Given his sidekick is cut from the same cloth , maverick and what the feck do the experts know and seems to be what Keith Harris was to Orville we are where we are .

What I do know is this , despite my deep dislike of the Tory Party absolutely no way would this clown ever be near a prominent position within the Tory Party never mind PM even 10 years ago .

He'd most probably be still spouting pro EU content for The Spectator which nobody ever read .

If I were a true blue Tory I'd be wondering how the feck we ever got to this having this clown in Downing Street .

Shifty , arrogant , smug untruthful and a belief homed in Eton that he's untouchable .

The ducks lined up very nicely for Johnson to get where he sits right now , I'll give him that , Blair landed on his feet too in different circumstances .

The difference is Blair didn't have to face economic armageddon or securing a trade deal post leaving the EU and could cash in to a certain extent .

This pandemic as I say has changed everything and the country may well need an intelligent man low on personality but competent to steer the ship to calmer waters .

There's a reason Ray Wilkins won 84
England caps and Matt Le Tissier won 8 .

One was reliable in any situation and the other couldn't be trusted .

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

All smoke and mirrors to fool the public, just like Harold Wilson’s pipe

[Scum-Triumphant]

I think it’s a bit cheeky. Is it 400+ replies of party politics. Is it feck.

Some of you would explode if one of them shagged a prostitute in a Chelsea kit. That was what was expected when politics was cool.

You’re all reaching. And you’re all getting precious about nowt. Both sides.

[KerrAvon]

I do think animosity directed towards you on here is rather sickening. The "fake solicitor" nonsense is extremely childish (I suppose for some it substitutes for the hilarious Warney barbeque/green tea jibes now that we're not actually playing football)
Some posters even seem to have a serious personal vendetta going on.
I often disagree with your opinions but I find that you invariably put your case well and fairly.
I am certainly not wanting to join the lynch mob and I realise that you can easily look after yourself anyway.
So, it's without prejudice that I have to say that I think you are way off the mark with your "no significant risk" line of argument.
I did post this before and you wrote that it had to be taken in context with other posters' comments understating the ridiculous behaviour of the press outside Cummings' house.
However, since then you have repeated it a few times - as I said before this really surprises me.
Even his allies have not been daft enough to suggest that driving up and down the country (at that time) posed no significant risk. Their argument, in his defence, has always been that the "serious" risk to his son outweighed the risk of driving.
The government's position was most definitely that people driving long distances could put strain on the emergency services - services which would be stretched trying to save lives during the pandemic. Several local police forces issued serious warnings for the same reason.
Of course, one person taking a trip is highly unlikely to have an accident. That seems to be your argument, Surely you see the flaw in that? If everybody believes that they are that one person who will not have an accident and the roads get busy the likelihood of affecting the emergency services increases. Who decides who the trusted few are to be who can drive about with "no significant risk"?
Doubtless there are a lot of critics with their own agenda re Cummings but there are a lot of people justified in their anger that he would appear to be one of the exempt few. They may be wrong - his risk assessment re the threat to his son may be right.
However I've not seen anybody else playing down the importance of not driving long distances - just you.
As I said - surprised.

You have always come across as a very decent poster, Wrinkly. Thank you for your comments, but you need to be careful lest you attract the attention of my fan club.

I have never expressly claimed to be a lawyer (although I may have dropped the odd hint) and the post after post on the subject by certain people is of little interest to me. It is what it is and it is rather strange.

I stand by my low risk comments. I haven’t tried to look out any statistics, but my experience is that I have been driving since 1983 doing quite a high mileage in some years and have never been involved in an incident in which the emergency services have been required to attend. I don’t think that is an atypical position, which is why I think the notion that Cummings presented an unacceptable risk of such contact when he drove to Durham to be slightly bonkers.

A better reason why I think it wrong to criticise Cummings for the journey to Durham is that I think that if I were in his position – concerned about whether he would continue to care for his son if he and his wife became very ill and with no local family to fall back on - I might well have done as he did. I was pleased to see that the Durham Police took the view that the journey was not in contravention of the law in their eminently sensible statement yesterday.

The trip to Barnard Castle was in a different category. I haven’t seen his press statement, but have read about what Cummings said about it. I can understand why someone might take a short trip to see if they feel comfortable with making a longer one, but the destination and that he had his family with him suggests to me that it was for the purposes of going for a walk (it may have been killing two birds with one stone, of course). Again, however, the actual risk involved was minimal, which, again, was recognised by the Durham Police. And, of course, the guidance was changed a couple of weeks later to allow travel in England for the purposes of taking exercise.

As for the notion that his conduct has somehow weakened the resolve of the public to lock down, I would simply ask ‘really?’. I have been observing lockdown as has everyone I know (to the best of my knowledge) and can’t say that I have felt the urge to start breaking it since the Cummings story broke. It hasn’t caused me to reappraise the risk. I appreciate that some people might use it as an excuse, but, frankly, the likelihood is that they were resistant to compliance in any event.

Nobody knew about what Cummings had done until The Mirror and The Guardian decided that breaking the story about the two low risk trips was in the public interest and the rest of the media and social media decided to have a pile on. I have no doubt that any uptick in infections will now be linked to the story in the same way, notwithstanding the lack of any evidence of a connection.

I think people need to step back, reflect on the reality of what actually happened and the risk that entailed and calm down a bit. We seem to have gone collectively mad.

[caytonmiller]

As you know Kerr I'm not one of your bashing buddies though can I ask. You have been driving since 1983. In all that time have you driven whilst being ill (possibly) or whilst you suspected yourself of carrying a deadly virus? (Prob not)

[Scum-Triumphant]

As you know Kerr I'm not one of your bashing buddies though can I ask. You have been driving since 1983. In all that time have you driven whilst being ill (possibly) or whilst you suspected yourself of carrying a deadly virus? (Prob not)

Since 1983? That’s some journey. You’ll catch voyager up soon.

[WanChaiMiller]

I will look out for it, but fear that our understanding of the word deal will be somewhat different.

Johnsons' various addresses to the nation were made on tv direct to each individual member of the public (or family group). There was no discussion across society, no public meetings with a show of hands for support or public vote of collective approval.

As I see it, the deal Johnson brockered was with each individual member of the public. The thoughts we were asked to consider was 1. do I trust him (do I believe what he is saying is true) 2. If so, am I prepared to put in place the measures he proposed.*

It was delivered as a request and not a demand with the threat of retribution. I see it was more an agreement between the 2 parties based on mutual trust and understanding.* The public, by and large, took Johnson on his word and applied those regulations for the greater good. A few days later, Sunak turned up with a huge wad of cash and sealed the deal.*

For me, that is the true essence of a deal. Perfectly executed, shows the brilliance of Cummings; and you didnt even realise its what happened.*

These philosophies (or series of deals) are played out every day and form the basis of our existence in work relationships, business agreements, sports team player coach relationships, parent/child relationships. Much of its implied, sometimes outlined, often used as motivation. But, there needs to be an underlaying principle of trust and a fair trade (a fair trade off).

How do you see it?

[rolymiller]

I do think animosity directed towards you on here is rather sickening. The "fake solicitor" nonsense is extremely childish (I suppose for some it substitutes for the hilarious Warney barbeque/green tea jibes now that we're not actually playing football)

I

You may think that the fake solicitor stuff is childish Wrinkly but if he is posing as a solicitor on here he is actually breaking the law and it is a jailable offence. It is that serious. Why does he not just come out and say he is a solicitor etc then. Then we know that he is who he claims to be. We can trust his words. Why would he not answer a very simple question about it even if it was only to shut his detractors up for good. He tantalises us with words which suggest he is in the legal trade but doesn't admit to what he actually does. If he didn't want us to know he was in the legal trade why do this?

While ever he does not do this I think we can safely ignore his opinions on here. The mikemiller Kempo phoney makes a lot of sense.

Don't you think his opinions are very inconsistent? The smooth talking solicitor/ lawyer/ barrister is just a means to give what he says credibility even though, on examination, it is bull sh it.

Don't be fooled you are better than that...

By the way, if I was a solicitor etc I would happily admit it in order to tout for some work.

It does not make sense. The only reason why he does not admit to these things is that he knows it would be illegal to do it if he wasn't.

[howdydoo]

You may think that the fake solicitor stuff is childish Wrinkly but if he is posing as a solicitor on here he is actually breaking the law and it is a jailable offence. It is that serious. Why does he not just come out and say he is a solicitor etc then. Then we know that he is who he claims to be. We can trust his words. Why would he not answer a very simple question about it even if it was only to shut his detractors up for good. He tantalises us with words which suggest he is in the legal trade but doesn't admit to what he actually does. If he didn't want us to know he was in the legal trade why do this?

While ever he does not do this I think we can safely ignore his opinions on here. The mikemiller Kempo phoney makes a lot of sense.

Don't you think his opinions are very inconsistent? The smooth talking solicitor/ lawyer/ barrister is just a means to give what he says credibility even though, on examination, it is bull sh it.

Don't be fooled you are better than that...

By the way, if I was a solicitor etc I would happily admit it in order to tout for some work.

It does not make sense. The only reason why he does not admit to these things is that he knows it would be illegal to do it if he wasn't.