It's absolutely clear that be did and should be obvious in anyone's opinion... But not in yours. Yet you're "not defending him"Originally Posted by lisvaneblue
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
It's absolutely clear that be did and should be obvious in anyone's opinion... But not in yours. Yet you're "not defending him"
Im not defending him.It's absolutely clear that be did and should be obvious in anyone's opinion... But not in yours. Yet you're "not defending him"
And it looks as if Emily Maitlis acting on behalf of the BBC did break the law via the BBC charter.
He returned to work after being in contact with someone he had suspected of having covid.
He drove a car with a medical condition with could have affected his ability to drive and failed to inform DVLA.
Which of these is not breaking the law?
How do you know that he failed to inform the DVLA. Its probable that he didn't but you seem certain, so how do you know?
His statement would absolutely 100% have mentioned it if he had informed the DVLA.
And as a rider...If he did break the law, the law says he can be fined, at that time it was £60, halved if you pay promptly
I would like anybody who’s clearly broken rules to be disciplined in a proportional and reasonable way. My post about Emily was just highlighting the irony of the swift and decisive action taken, I really don’t know in detail the basis for it.
I would also therefore like to see an enquiry/disciplinary process for Cummings started and the rest can take care of itself.
Despite his lengthy explanation and key cabinet ministers all saying why they agree with him, you‘ve confirmed that you still haven’t been convinced he hasn’t broken the rules. This is therefore a key matter of trust and credibility during a public health crisis. Many people feel the same way as you or much more strongly.
NO...I didn't say he hadn't broken the 'guidance'. What I asked was whether it was a sackable offence if he had.
You're not defending him yet sound like his (albeit shit) lawyer
He didn't just break the guidance anyway... He took a big steaming shit all over the laws created that were meant to protect the public from the Coronavirus.
Someone who isn't about to go to work in 10mins will hopefully be able to list each action that he took which contravened those laws.
Shame on the Government, but at that time ie late March, the message wasn't to protect us from the virus, it was to protect the NHS, flatten the curve so that it would not be overwhelmed
Going for a drive to check if you're well enough to drive is the offence here.
So is speeding, but it's not what people are after his blood for.
I’d be happy for this to be decided following an inquiry. Agreed?
I don't really care. I think it will blow over but not forgotten
OK, is letting it 'blow over' what you really meant by a fair and balanced outcome?
Please tell me when I mentioned a fair and balanced outcome. I said it will probably blow over.
Meanwhile the police have said that a minor misdemeanour took place and no further action needed
That is probably a fair and balanced outcome from UK law enforcement
‘Im not defending DC but Im trying to be fair.’
‘Emily Maitlis however did break the rules of her employment, so lets try to be a bit balanced.’
Given we were discussing various outcomes (sacking, inquiries, disciplinaries) in both cases I presumed you felt your position was the fair and balanced one.
However I’ve really found your train of thought quite difficult to follow tbh.
I don’t even think breaking the law is the big issue (Even though he did) it’s going against rules set out by his employer (which in this case were also for the whole country) and getting away with it. If we all did something like that we’d all be sacked.
Emily Maitlis should not be sacked. It is disappointing she has been rebuked and dropped from last night's Newsnight slot. She has come out of the last week with more credit in my mind than any other BBC journalist - some of whom (Laura K for instance) have been their usual supine selves, acting as government mouthpieces as usual. Maitlis at least tried to be a mouthpiece for public outrage.
The BBC always gets in a knot around its Charter requirements for neutrality and balance. It consistently ends up inconsistent in how it applies that (bending to the government of the day and 'establishment' voices) and too often decides that if there is any 'alternative' opinion it should have equal billing - leading to its platform for climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and flat earthers!
The Dominic Cummings scandal is clearly in part about him, his selfish and rule-breaking decisions, and his status at the heart of government. But it is mainly about Johnson and the Cabinet's response. He is employed by Johnson not by the civil service and whether he gets the boot or not is down to his boss - even if he was to be fined by the police for a lockdown breach - which won't happen.
Boris Johnson is the story now - not Cummings. Every day he continues to excuse or endorse Cummings' actions - and sends out his minions to do the same - he undermines his own government, the main public health messages and the scientists, police and front line workers trying to put the Covid strategy into action. It is poison at the heart of government (as is Cummings). I imagine he can't function without Cummings, but I doubt he can 'move on' whilst he continues to defend the indefensible.
The headlines may fade away for a while but the damage is done - whether the special advisor is dumped or not.
I agree with everything Emily Maitlis said, but I did think "that's a bit strong" the first time I heard it given who she is employed by and the BBC's supposed neutrality. However, I think it would only make matters worse for the Government if she was sacked I believe because you would have two widely different interpretations of the punishment "fitting the crime" in the public domain at the same time with the one only further emphasising the hypocrisy and absurdity of the other one.
Anyway, it seems the decision not to present last night's programme would appear to have been made by Emily Maitlis herself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52830437
If hes got bad eyesight he should be asking the opinion of an optician if his eyesight impairs his driving
Not jumping in a car and trying it out himself ff sake
Anyone defending this idiot is an embarrassment
Your lawyering is getting a bit better now, arguing semantics for semantics sake.
If the NHS weren't able to cope due to being overrun with patients who had contracted Coronavirus... that would cost lives, wouldn't it? I mean, I'm pretty sure that's what the Prime Minister wrote in his letter which was sent to everyone in the UK.
(I'm sure you'll be pedantic again instead of making a decent argument by saying that it was unlikely sent instead to everyone in the UK).
The cold, hard facts are that Dominic Cummings' own statement shows that he is guilty on at least 3 occasions of breaking the Covid laws. I'll list the ones that I've remembered.
He said that he left work one day, went home to see his wife (whom he believed to have Covid) and then returned to work again the same day. That's number one. You have to self-isolate for 14 days if you believe that someone that you live with (or have even come into contact with) has Covid symptoms.
He then drove a person with Covid symptoms 260 miles to another part of the country. He was healthy at that point, according to his statement, so there was no emergency that required him to make that trip.
He drove a 60 mile round trip to "test his eyesight." At that time, only essential journeys were permitted. Testing your eyesight by driving heavy machinery isn't an essential journey.
I don't see the point of arguing the matter any further if you don't see that those 3 instances he talked about on Monday was self-incriminating.
And it probably needs to be repeated, they were all within his own statement.
They are also trying to use the "fake stories in the media" line, but the most inaccurate accounts in the media were those written by him and his wife in the spectator.
Deliberately misleading? Some may conclude that.
The initial guardian/mirror reporting looks to be pretty accurate.
And it probably needs to be repeated, they were all within his own statement.
They are also trying to use the "fake stories in the media" line, but the most inaccurate accounts in the media were those written by him and his wife in the spectator.
Deliberately misleading? Some may conclude that.
The initial guardian/mirror reporting looks to be pretty accurate.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote