You seem to be taking this new information as fact - yet you have literally questioned every part of the news about Cummings. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Printable View
You seem to be taking this new information as fact - yet you have literally questioned every part of the news about Cummings. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
OK, I found it. doesn't look good does it? I wonder how much he actually influences that kind of decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Partly because the man who lied admitted himself and none of the others have denied their actions. It's really a case of one being as bad as another, and the amount of spin that the media puts on everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
I think Cummins was wrong whatever is said, but things like this just don't breed confidence do they?
That isn't trolling. That is pointing out your lack of consistency and is, therefore, relevant to the point you are making. You claim you read something, but you have also claimed you don't read these things. It's important, to the casual reader, to point this out.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Where did you find it? Could you post a link please?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
So, this is an attack on the media. Which you don't read (neither real nor online).Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
"The retired teacher saw Cummins in Barnard Castle whilst he was'isolating' in Durham" - where in Durham was he "isolating" that makes this is an issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
When did he pick his daughter up from Berkshire? Was it before or after CummingsGate and the easing of lockdown in England?
Asking for a friend.
Latest on the Oxford vaccine
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...virus-vaccine/
:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
Arguably, this response is trolling. But, I take your lack of words as a lack of an argument. I'll let the casual reader decide on how much weight they'd want to put on your observations which, to put it mildly, seem to be based on you actually reading a newspaper (real or online) and getting a story that confirms your own bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
So, no link?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
apparently it was either just before or just after the ban on driving distances was relaxed but form what I saw he wasn't sure, and he definitely contacted and traveled with a person who was isolating at another place and took them into his family which risked possibly infecting either his family or the people in the house he went to to collect her, which despite when he did it was still contrary to the lockdown requirements. So basically he took the risk of contaminating the people in the house in Berkshire or of his daughter contaminating his family in Durham.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
As I have now said 3 times, it doesn't make what Cummins did right but it makes you doubt people when they say things, particularly when its held and altered by the media. That is the main point, that the media spin things so you cannot take anything on face value.
But you don't read the media. You've said this.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
I know you struggle with facts, that is fine. I am just reminding any readers that you have an awful lot of opinions on something that you claim you don't even read.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Either you are a liar (in that you do read newspapers "real or online")
Or, you have an anti-media agenda and are cherry-picking examples to back up your anti-media sentiments and biases.
I can't really see it being anything other than those two things at present.
Type :wave: if you are unable to refute the above
Type an answer if you are able to refute the above.
:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
I'm asking you these questions because you are taking the medias word for it on how they're reporting the "facts" yet questioned everything else preceding the news today.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
You have said yourself that the gentleman in question "saw Cummins in Barnard Castle whilst he was'isolating' in Durham" - I want to know how you know he was isolating in Durham as if you're going to keep saying that the media twist everything, then surely you can see that this could be twisted? Does he even live in Durham?
:wave: I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
So you are a liar with an anti-media agenda. Thanks for confirming.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I said Cummins was isolating in Durham (County) not the man who saw him, it never occurred to me that the chap didn't live local in Barnard Castle (Co Durham) and was in his local area when he saw Cummins. But he did admit that he drove 250 miles to collect his daughter from Ascot, so if he doesn't live in Durham its must be pretty close if it was that direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
and you're a multi identity troll. :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
And, I suppose on the 7th time of me asking, you can back that up with something factual - right?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
But, with your reputation as a liar with an anti-media agenda I can't say I have much hope of you providing proof to back up any claims you make. You have dismally failed again tonight.
:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
Gotcha. The way you wrote it made it look like you were talking about the witness. My bad :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I'm still unsure as to why you think the media twisted the Cummings story though - whether the "retired teacher" broke the rules or not is irrelevant. His version of events that he told The Sun/The Guardian turned out to be 100% true - as Cummings admitted.
The only... I repeat only thing that was inaccurate in all of the reporting was the 'second trip' that Cummings supposedly made and it was never printed as fact.
The Mail are now spinning it as though it's all lies and the "retired teacher" cannot be a good witness because of irrelevant facts, which you seem to be projecting too - but that would mean that you're taken in by their spin of it, which you say you're sceptical of. I'm getting dizzy now.
Thanks for the confirmation that you are making baseless accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
A lying twat with an anti-media agenda who has been making baseless accusations against me for some time. Accusations based on me barely attending games, when I told him why, he continued to make baseless accusations. What a first class thicko, and 8th class troll.
I don't think they did, but the second story was spun as the guy admits it was a lie and you expect professional journalists to spot that, if it suited them, ahe Tit about the police speaking to Cummins' family was spun, the reality being that they went there when called by Mr cummins senior to discuss security, nothing to do with Cummins and his trip. Things like that just taint the truth that they are built on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
But when the shit storm started before I had only read one article and people started to attack me referring to a completely different article. But its over and I have no wish to reignite that.
And it happens I don't like him anyway, there are some people you can take an instant dislike to just looking at them, and for me he is one of those.
You would expect the Mail to spin that but it just re-enforces my point about that fact you cannot trust anything today to be the straight truth, it is all spun to suit one agenda or the other.
I feel like you keep glossing over the point I'm making - why do you keep saying that the Cummings story was "spun"?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Out of everything that was reported there was one inaccuracy - and that appears to be because the so-called witness went to some effort with his lie.
That's not spinning the story - that's printing exactly what happened and being given dodgy information by someone.
Where do you think the "spin" is in this story from the left-wing media?
"ahe Tit about the police speaking to Cummins' family was spun"
Sorry, I didn't address this bit - that wasn't spun either. The Durham police force changed their story after No. 10 denied that the family were spoken to.
You misunderstand me, I don't think what he did was spun at all, but other things they then connected to it like the police visit and the second "Sighting" were both inaccurate and one should expect journalists to check the veracity of what they print. What the police actually did should at least have been fairly easy to verify if they had bothered. Or don't you agree? "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
the person who made up seeing Cummings in co Durham was not the person who originally reported it, just someone who jumped on the bandwagon for a laugh. the original report was valid and has since been confirmed by Cummings himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
the mail article made it seem as though the person who has admitted making up seeing Cummings was the original person who made the claim but that isn't true.
I never said that. I said the person who reported the first sighting was correct. He is the man who drove to Ascot to collect his daughter from a house when she was isolating and take her to another house where he and his family were isolating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
The man who reported the second sighting, Mr Matthews was lying. If you have read an article in the daily mail that says different I'd like to see it.
Where did you read it?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
What police visit? I don't remember that part of the story, sorry. I only remember the police saying that they spoke to the family about self-isolating - number 10 said they didn't speak to the family - then the police said that they spoke to his dad about security matters. If I'm wrong, then I'll accpet that - but I'm having problems finding the reporting of a police visit.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
But if I'm not wrong, then we're having this debate just because someone lied in one part of this story and the media printed it - because he made it look like it was accurate.
The papers couldn't verify the Barnard Castle visit btw - yet they printed what the witness had told them and after Number 10 vehemently denied it - Cummings came out and admitted it.
I don't see where the "spin" is in this story at all, sorry. All of the spin has been after the news broke and certain agendas have been trying to poke holes wherever they can so that they can say "if that bit wasn't true - none of it was".
Just my opinion.
no the first person that reported the second sighting wasn't the same person that later admitted he made it up. the person who made it up was the second person to report the second sighting!Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Where did you read it?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
:wave: for "In the newspapers that I don't read (real or online)"
Supply answer for anything else.
Not sure what the point of all this is. Cummings has admitted that he was in Durham and in Barnard's Castle. The second sighting being a lie does not negate the antics of Cummings and his 30 mile eyesight test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
The police said they attended the property, the media added the reason. The Durham police have now stated that they did not visit as a result of a complaint about Cummins' presence, and they did not speak to him and his wife. The actually visited the property at Mr Cummins senior's request to discuss security of the property. It had nothing to do with Cummins or anything connected to lock-down . Another point that bothers me about this is that the Durham Police could have corrected the suggestions regarding the visit immediately but that chose not to. I wonder who made that call?Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
Yes the Barnard castle visit was correct, the alleged second sighting was the lie. It seems to me that the media don't check too hard when what they hear suits their argument and do if it doesn't. It should have been easily proven that Cummins was in fact in London on the day of the alleged second visit.
Every time the do this kind of thing they just make me doubt the honestly of anything in the media.
exactly, he admitted it himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO
in any case the second sighting was not a lie, just someone who jumped onto the bandwagon of the second sighting was making it up.
what is being attempted here is to muddy the waters and exhaust people's capacity for critical reasoning. and it seems like it is working.