Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

A lot of straw clutching but he's  not going in my opinion.

You can get 7-4  on him going by July and 1-3  after and that speaks volumes to me.

This is over.

He's Johnson's SPAD, while Johnson thinks he needs him he will remain. Nothing anyone can do about it. In Brexit Britain I was told we would be able to unelect our leaders. Turns out that is not the case.

Edited by BigFish
sp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Indy said:

Add to this, if he’s saying his eye sight was poor, he put his 4 year old son in the car and drove an hour! What parent would put his child at risk! Surely he’d leave his son and wife at home and drive round the block.

Why the fook has nobody asked about driving a child in a car when you can’t see

Edited by Van wink
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Schedule 1 defines vulnerable groups as including those you have stated. The qualifier 'includes' suggests the list is not exhaustive.  No reason it should not include a four year old.

I'm not getting in a debate about the morals or reasonableness of his actions but if I was his lawyer if probably go straight to these two exemptions and bundle anything else into an argument under the residual grounds for travel.

 

1(3) In these Regulations—

(c)“vulnerable person” includes—

(i)any person aged 70 or older;

(ii)any person under 70 who has an underlying health condition, including but not limited to, the conditions listed in Schedule 1;

(iii)any person who is pregnant.
 

 

 

Used “including but not limited to” in limb ii but only “including” at (c). That suggests the ‘including’ at (c) is exhaustive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

He's Johnson's SPAD, while Johnson thinks he needs him he will remain. Nothing anyone can do about it. In Brexit Britain I was told we would be able to unelect our leaders. Turns out that is not the case.

He has also very successfully distanced the PM from any of this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

So which account is the most convincing?

Barnard Castle or Pizza Express?

Pizza express, by several miles. Andrew would have had no probs taking his kids to Croyden P E , drop  them  home  , then a quick spin into central London in time for the nightclubs . Sorted. I have not heard that issue raised ref Randy Andy and that evening....he had plenty of time to do both. Yet as far as I know, no one challenged him over this topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ricardo said:

He has also very successfully distanced the PM from any of this.

Taken one for the team (à la Tony Adams)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ricardo said:

He has also very successfully distanced the PM from any of this.

Yep, nice touch to say he didn't tell Johnson where he was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I doubt he’ll be prosecuted either, but I am interested in the morality of it when he is advising the PM.

Even he hasn’t tried to argue that he was just reasonably “moving house”, instead using some young child exemption which doesn’t appear to be anywhere expressly in writing.

Edit: also it hasn’t been qualified later or amended. The newer regs just brought in additional exemptions as part of the first stage of lifting of lockdown. Previously you could move house where reasonably necessary, now you can still do that, but also go to estate agents, house viewings etc.

 

As I said I'm not getting into a debate about the rights and wrongs. I'm just suggesting that he has three potential excuses open to him.   It doesnt really matter what I think. What matters is what the police, CPS and the bench think.

Surely the regulations were amended. that's why the new regulations have (amendment) in the title no?

 They used to say:

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary

And now they say:

to undertake any of the following activities in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property—

this rather suggests you used to be able to move where the reason was unconnected with purchase, sale etc. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No humility at all, all about him trying to squirm his way to not being fired! Not once has he actually apologised for breaking an instruction not an advisory........everyone else was told to stay at home!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Tested his eyes by putting his child in a car, stopping at an isolated river bank, sitting around there for a bit until he got spotted, droving to a forest, playing there for a bit until he got spotted again and then went home. Don’t you test your eyes like that as well?

Should have gone to Specsavers - they're open for emergencies  🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, BigFish said:

He's Johnson's SPAD, while Johnson thinks he needs him he will remain.Nope.

 

Nope.

It's a case of what Johnson is told to do, Johnson does.

As there is clearly no good reason for Cummings to stay so the decision is certainly out of his hands.

Which to me is off far greater concern than when, where, why he was at any place.

So who is Cummings really accountable to, and who is running the country as it is DEFINITELY not Johnson ?

 

 

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

He's just treating the population like idiots.

He is but what appalling journalists we have, no forensic questioning, half of them like kittens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Pizza express, by several miles. Andrew would have had no probs taking his kids to Croyden P E , drop  them  home  , then a quick spin into central London in time for the nightclubs . Sorted. I have not heard that issue raised ref Randy Andy and that evening....he had plenty of time to do both. Yet as far as I know, no one challenged him over this topic. 

I believe he can’t sweat either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also didn't mention the day trip to Barnard Castle was his wife's birthday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Anyone else find it Trump like government, that Durham police downplayed their official statement at 4:01, today, from questioning his farther about covid movements of his family to now a security issue! Cover up on a larger scale! Pressure put on them?

Edited by Indy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

As I said I'm not getting into a debate about the rights and wrongs. I'm just suggesting that he has three potential excuses open to him.   It doesnt really matter what I think. What matters is what the police, CPS and the bench think.

Surely the regulations were amended. that's why the new regulations have (amendment) in the title no?

 They used to say:

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary

And now they say:

to undertake any of the following activities in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property—

this rather suggests you used to be able to move where the reason was unconnected with purchase, sale etc. 

 

Well I think for a government advisor the morals matter as much as the letter of the law.

For completeness, the amendment still says “moving home” as below. The additional wording was added because you can now move home and do other things and also to make you can only do the additional things for a residential property (as opposed to going to an estate or letting agent for a commercial property). 
[edit: and check the date of the amendment - it was in order to bring in the relaxations of lockdown - far easier to amend this one than bring in whole swathes of new legislation repealing certain bits and adding new]

 


to undertake any of the following activities in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property—

(i)visiting estate or letting agents, developer sales offices or show homes;

(ii)viewing residential properties to look for a property to buy or rent;

(iii)preparing a residential property to move in;

(iv)moving home;

(v)visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that 

 

 

The far better defence (which is what Cummings effectively said in the press conference) would be to rely on 6(m) that he was seeking to avoid his child becoming ill or the risk of it. In any event, he won’t get prosecuted and I don’t think it’s the best use of police team to faff around looking at whether anybody was flouting lockdown rules a month ago. That’s probably all that needs to be said if you don’t want to get into a discussion about rights and wrongs. Personally though, I think rights and wrongs pretty important when we’re discussing actions of a government advisor.
 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Van wink said:

He is but what appalling journalists we have, no forensic questioning, half of them like kittens

Nothing changed there then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's  been  caught out, simple as that. Whether anyone will have the gumption to  really go after him , not so sure. Because he's  a senior advisor,he'll have some kinda dirt on every member of the cabinet.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

He's  been  caught out, simple as that. Whether anyone will have the gumption to  really go after him , not so sure. Because he's  a senior advisor,he'll have some kinda dirt on every member of the cabinet.......

I got that the delay was the press were given that statement and their questions were scrutinised prior to the tv conference.......he might not fare so well tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Nothing changed there then.

True. We have the same problem in the US. The media need a complete overhaul unfortunately as the fact that date was his wife’s birthday was already known, and any journalist worth their salt would have asked about that - get him on the record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Aggy said:

 

The far better defence (which is what Cummings effectively said in the press conference) would be to rely on 6(m) that he was seeking to avoid his child becoming ill or the risk of it. In any event, he won’t get prosecuted and I don’t think it’s the best use of police team to faff around looking at whether anybody was flouting lockdown rules a month ago. That’s probably all that needs to be said if you don’t want to get into a discussion about rights and wrongs. Personally though, I think rights and wrongs pretty important when we’re discussing actions of a government advisor.
 

I did think about the avoiding illness thing but I'm not sure how moving from one house to another would help if you brought the patient(s) with you.  Perhaps the other house has a whole wing a child can isolate in!

Of course the rights and wrong of the actions are important.  I just dont want to be part of the discussion on here. 

Politics here is just two sides shouting at each other and when the housing stops no one is any thenwoser for the experience

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

He's just treating the population like idiots.

Him and Johnson both - unfortunately that has worked pretty well for them in the past so maybe it will this time as well.

But so far it seems to be going really well, the longer Johnson and Cummings can keep this up the more damage they are inflicting on the Government and the Tory party generally and eventually that is what will finish Cummings off.

But, as VW observed yesterday they appear to be joined at the hip which has to make you wonder whether the end is in sight for Johnson as well. One thing you can't fault the Tories for is their instinct for and ruthlessness about changing their leader if they become a potential liability (no matter how popular they've been). Johnson got elected as leader because they thought he could win an election (tick) and 'get Brexit done' (tick). Well done Boris 😀

But now as it becomes clearer almost on a daily basis that he is completely out of his depth, providing zero leadership and is an increasing liability what is the point of Johnson for the next 4 years?? None at all as far as I can see and although he is ridiculously inexperienced to be PM there is literally only one member of the cabinet to emerge from this crisis with any credit whatsoever and that is Rishi Sunak. With the next 4 years likely to consist overwhelmingly of trying to climb out of the first economic depression any of us (unless someone has a letter from the Queen) have experienced then if I were a Tory MP I'd feel a lot happier with Sunak in charge than the current buffoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note, 121 deaths today, with about 1200 new cases today, positive as it’s still coming down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Leaving aside the question of going up north in general, the thing about that hilariously absurd Barnard Castle excuse is that it is a clear admission that with that excursion he he broke the lockdown rules. So if that was what he told Johnson before Johnson went on TV and said Cummings had acted entirely legally then Johnson was lying.

Surprised that I haven't yet seen 'A load of eyewash' as a tabloid headline, but it is bound to come...🤓

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/05/2020 at 10:02, T said:

If you tolerate Brexit then a mismanaged pandemic will be next. 

Is that the new single from the Manic Street Preachers?

Though I doubt anyone will get the reference.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I did think about the avoiding illness thing but I'm not sure how moving from one house to another would help if you brought the patient(s) with you.  Perhaps the other house has a whole wing a child can isolate in!

No it doesn’t work brilliantly but I suppose the argument could be that if he and his wife were completely incapacitated (as he said was his fear, despite his wife having no fever or cough and him showing no symptoms at all!) then I suppose a four year old would be at risk of harm. Loose at best I think.

Interested in the “young child exceptional circumstances” exemption he kept referring to. I don’t think there is one, unless it’s (again loosely) chucked under “vulnerable person” but for reasons above I don’t think that one really washes either.

The other thing is that the regs were brought in, in a rush, under emergency powers because of an epidemic. So they aren’t drafted brilliantly, as you’ve shown re moving house. But because of the circumstances in which they were brought in, there is an added element of good faith to complying with them - another reason that frankly him trying to weasel out of it based on poorly drafted and unclear legislation is not a good luck for the government. 

And fair enough re politics on here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the relevance is of picking over his 'story'

It is clear that this visit to his parents was planned in advance his mums b'day and then his wife's B'Day (Aggy). Lockdown then hits, and they decide to 'chance it'....whoopee do.

There then follows a cobbled together cover up, which is similarly torn apart. A child of three (or four in this case) could see through this - so why the fuss. He's been caught lying as have Np.10

So move on.

Why has he not been sacked ? Why is his whole demeanour one of knowing he won't, or more likely can't be sacked. Because that takes us to why he felt he could replace Javids staff. Why he attends meetings that he is not supposed to be at

Start to ask those questions and you might begin to recognise where the REAL problem lies.

Who is running the government ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Van wink said:

He is but what appalling journalists we have, no forensic questioning, half of them like kittens

And still people buy the newspapers and vote the dodgy politicians in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I believe there is more important things to consider rather than Cummings wrong doings= like people who lost there jobs. care homes, etc . But the media which I got no word of praise for. Media hanging around his poor parents home is disgusting, wish some of the media would experience the same experiences that they dish out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...