Cummings broke lockdown twice.

[L.A.T.1961]

Anti - Cummings Tory's throw in the towel.

Nick Watt reported on Newsnight last night that the group of anti-Cummings Tories are conceding defeat.

 

https://order-order.com/2020/05/28/watch-anti-cummings-tories-throw-in-the-towel/

 

[hetrodoxly]

9 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Anti - Cummings Tory's throw in the towel.

Nick Watt reported on Newsnight last night that the group of anti-Cummings Tories are conceding defeat.

 

https://order-order.com/2020/05/28/watch-anti-cummings-tories-throw-in-the-towel/

 

The constituents of these anti Cummings (Brexit) Tories should consider deselecting them, not since WW2 have we needed everyone behind the government, if they're still not on board they need to go.

[L.A.T.1961]

Just now, hetrodoxly said:

The constituents of these anti Cummings (Brexit) Tories should consider deselecting them, not since WW2 have we needed everyone behind the government, if they're still not on board they need to go.

At least this episode has flushed out those with their own agenda. 

[Setton]

37 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

At least this episode has flushed out those with their own agenda. 

Obeying the law is 'their own agenda'? And one only some subscribe to?

Wait, we're talking Tories, sounds right.

[L.A.T.1961]

3 minutes ago, Setton said:

Obeying the law is 'their own agenda'? And one only some subscribe to?

Wait, we're talking Tories, sounds right.

If the police had found that Dom had committed a serious breach of guidelines then your point would be reasonable, but they did not. The police are taking no further action. 

Those wanting Dom to lose his job were happy for him to go despite his reasonable behavior. Innocent until proven guilty does not appear to worry some 30 odd Tory MP's, if they can get rid of somebody they have issues with.  

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

If the police had found that Dom had committed a serious breach of guidelines then your point would be reasonable, but they did not. The police are taking no further action. 

As the police have said themselves, that's because the policy is to encourage before penalising. Doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

The police also took no action against the MSP who had to resign after breaking the law or the SAGE member who didn't even break the rules but his girlfriend did. He also had to resign.

But when it's Cummings apparently the policy is to retrospectively change the law so his actions were legal.

[L.A.T.1961]

3 minutes ago, Setton said:

As the police have said themselves, that's because the policy is to encourage before penalising. Doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

The police also took no action against the MSP who had to resign after breaking the law or the SAGE member who didn't even break the rules but his girlfriend did. He also had to resign.

But when it's Cummings apparently the policy is to retrospectively change the law so his actions were legal.

The police cannot retrospectively change the law and they had an original chance to warn or fine Dom when he arrived, they did issue over 100 fines at the time to others.

Now they have had another chance to access his actions and still find his behavior not worthy of further actions. 

The thing is if Dom had been sacked at the weekend, before the police investigation had been published, could Dom have appealed for unfair dismissal, I would say a union rep would advise he had a strong case against his employer. 

[stevewinn]

what a great day, Police take no action over Cummings. that should put it to bed. but wont for those pushing an agenda, under the guise of faux outrage.

And Boris a few minutes ago at the daily brief as just shot Laura Kuenssberg down good style. well done Boris.

 

 

 

[Setton]

8 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

The police cannot retrospectively change the law and they had an original chance to warn or fine Dom when he arrived, they did issue over 100 fines at the time to others.

 

The police can't change the law at all. The government has, apparently, changed it retrospectively. As evidenced by Hancock saying they will now have to look at everyone who was fined for travelling for childcare.

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

what a great day, Police take no action over Cummings. that should put it to bed. but wont for those pushing an agenda, under the guise of faux outrage.

What makes you think it's faux outrage?

Why should a government advisor be held to lower standards than another government advisor or an actual member of parliament?

[Duke Wellington]

Just now, Setton said:

The police can't change the law at all. The government has, apparently, changed it retrospectively. As evidenced by Hancock saying they will now have to look at everyone who was fined for travelling for childcare.

Mr Cummings put his wife and child first as most people would do, regardless of the law. Normal people can all relate to that.

As it is his violation wasn't serious and the guy is good at his job so he should be kept. You dont sack decent staff for minor infractions just because the left are baying for his blood and the media want a sensationalist story.

Also the law hasn't been changed, no one knows what you are going on about with that one. Please offer some evidence we have all missed or be quiet. Do we really need a Twitter fact checker here to monitor your posts?

[Setton]

6 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Mr Cummings put his wife and child first as most people would do, regardless of the law. Normal people can all relate to that.

So it's fine to steal for your family?

Good to know.

Quote

As it is his violation wasn't serious and the guy is good at his job so he should be kept. You dont sack decent staff for minor infractions just because the left are baying for his blood and the media want a sensationalist story.

And yet another advisor had to resign even though he didn't break the law.

Quote

Also the law hasn't been changed, no one knows what you are going on about with that one. Please offer some evidence we have all missed or be quiet. 

Literally just did.

Are you sure your earlier comment about reading glasses wasn't based on personal experience?

[L.A.T.1961]

15 minutes ago, Setton said:

The police can't change the law at all. The government has, apparently, changed it retrospectively. As evidenced by Hancock saying they will now have to look at everyone who was fined for travelling for childcare.

There was a clarification on this a few days ago. 

The government will not review fines issued to families who travelled to get childcare in lockdown. 

Senior figures in other departments weren't aware that Mr Hancock was going to say that and Number 10 weren't that impressed, and within minutes the special adviser for Matt Hancock was calling round to make clear no such thing as a formal review was underway. "The steer from government is that there will be no change in government policy on that."

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-govt-to-look-at-fines-given-to-families-in-lockdown-after-vicar-puts-hancock-on-spot-11995052

[Setton]

50 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

There was a clarification on this a few days ago. 

The government will not review fines issued to families who travelled to get childcare in lockdown. 

Senior figures in other departments weren't aware that Mr Hancock was going to say that and Number 10 weren't that impressed, and within minutes the special adviser for Matt Hancock was calling round to make clear no such thing as a formal review was underway. "The steer from government is that there will be no change in government policy on that."

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-govt-to-look-at-fines-given-to-families-in-lockdown-after-vicar-puts-hancock-on-spot-11995052

So instead of retrospectively changing it, they're just not applying the rules to Cummings.

Actually don't know which is worse.

[L.A.T.1961]

21 hours ago, Setton said:

So instead of retrospectively changing it, they're just not applying the rules to Cummings.

Actually don't know which is worse.

I thought the vicar's question was quite amusing, it obviously implied that he believed that Cummings was spinning a yarn. 

So no turning the other cheek or forgiveness from the vicar, and this from somebody who's day job is going around telling folk there is a heaven and hell and a chap called god. What you might call a professional inventor of the truth. 

The hypocrisy is obviously lost on the clergy. 

[Setton]

12 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I thought the vicar's question was quite amusing, it obviously implied that he believed that Cummings was spinning a yarn. 

Not at all. He didn't question Cummings' story, just pointed out that he was being let off where others had been punished.

[L.A.T.1961]

11 minutes ago, Setton said:

Not at all. He didn't question Cummings' story, just pointed out that he was being let off where others had been punished.

To be 'let off' implies that wrongdoing has been avoided and the individual is guilty of something. 

Cummings was not charged and his case dropped while others were fined, this implies he was without sin, as the vicar might say. 

No one knows the details of the other cases that received a fine and I doubt the good Lord whispered in the vicars ear so he cannot compare Cummings case to the others. 

So the logic used by the priest seems to be that because Dom was not guilty others who were are to be let off. 

[Setton]

45 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

To be 'let off' implies that wrongdoing has been avoided and the individual is guilty of something. 

Cummings was not charged and his case dropped while others were fined, this implies he was without sin, as the vicar might say. 

No one knows the details of the other cases that received a fine and I doubt the good Lord whispered in the vicars ear so he cannot compare Cummings case to the others. 

So the logic used by the priest seems to be that because Dom was not guilty others who were are to be let off. 

Except the police have confirmed his actions did breach the rules.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

What amazes me is the collective disregard for the law shown by Tory supporters. Puts a different slant on their claimed moral position.

Be Cornelius

[hetrodoxly]

24 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

What amazes me is the collective disregard for the law shown by Labour supporters. Puts a different slant on their claimed moral position.

Be Cornelius

I corrected you're post it appears you'd made a mistake.

As Labour have 4 MP's who had 'no' excuse whatsoever to break the lockdown law the silence is deafening, and the epocracy sickening.

[Setton]

2 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

I corrected you're post it appears you'd made a mistake.

As Labour have 4 MP's who had 'no' excuse whatsoever to break the lockdown law the silence is deafening, and the epocracy sickening.

Source?

[Guest Br Cornelius]

3 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

I corrected you're post it appears you'd made a mistake.

As Labour have 4 MP's who had 'no' excuse whatsoever to break the lockdown law the silence is deafening, and the epocracy sickening.

And if they had do you imagine I would support them, I don't support law breakers just because they share my politics.
You've really made my point better than I could - no moral code.

Br Cornelius

[hetrodoxly]

19 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

And if they had do you imagine I would support them, I don't support law breakers just because they share my politics.
You've really made my point better than I could - no moral code.

Br Cornelius

I'm glad to hear that, the only reason i posted it you only complain about one person and one party.

[skookum]

Cummings is a national obsession.  I know there are still many very bitter people out there regarding Brexit but he did not fill in 17.4 million ballot papers.  

[OpenMindedSceptic]

Just not interested.

He has an autistic son, he needed help. 

Maybe he was wrong, maybe he was right, but it's the virus we must focus on and fight.