Dominic Cummings to make public statement this afternoon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

It may or may not be a sackable offence, and the action the BBC take is up to them. I asked a question' should she be sacked?'

You've already made up your mind that it was not a sackable offence as she is still employed.

---

Do you think it was a sackable offence? I want journalists to be able to say what they see as true without the invisible hand of government looming over them. I am sure your opinions on press freedom were different when Labour were crying foul last year...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloo

So you’re in favour of people who break rules getting disciplined?

---

It was a question.....does she need to go as well? Do the reporters out DC house in a crowd need to go as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

Emily Maitlis broke the rules... Dominic Cummings broke the law.

---

Your opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

Your opinion

---

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" :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Do you think it was a sackable offence? I want journalists to be able to say what they see as true without the invisible hand of government looming over them. I am sure your opinions on press freedom were different when Labour were crying foul last year...

---

From what I've read this morning the BBC Charter ( ie Law) on broadcasting was broken by her comments crossing the BBC requirements to be impartial on controversial matters.

Ive got no opinions on press freedom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

It may or may not be a sackable offence, and the action the BBC take is up to them. I asked a question' should she be sacked?'

You've already made up your mind that it was not a sackable offence as she is still employed.

---

No, she shouldn't be sacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

Your opinion

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

It was a question.....does she need to go as well? Do the reporters out DC house in a crowd need to go as well?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

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" :hehe:

---

Im not defending him.

And it looks as if Emily Maitlis acting on behalf of the BBC did break the law via the BBC charter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloo

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

Im not defending him.

And it looks as if Emily Maitlis acting on behalf of the BBC did break the law via the BBC charter.

---

You're not defending him yet sound like his (albeit shit) lawyer :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

NO...I didn't say he hadn't broken the 'guidance'. What I asked was whether it was a sackable offence if he had.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

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?

---

Going for a drive to check if you're well enough to drive is the offence here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

NO...I didn't say he hadn't broken the 'guidance'. What I asked was whether it was a sackable offence if he had.

---

I’d be happy for this to be decided following an inquiry. Agreed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloo

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisvaneblue

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

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.

Matt Hancock repeatedly refuses to say whether Dominic Cummings 'did the right thing'


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...box=1590651617

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

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.

---

"It probably needs to be repeated"

You can say that again :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

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.

---

It is a desperate defence.

Most of the newspaper claims were confirmed by Cummings himself. The only significant one to have been dropped was the allegation (never presented as fact) that he had gone back up to Durham a week after returning to London.

The main problem with blaming 'false stories' is that Cummings had an hour in the Downing Street garden in front of the world's media to give his own version of events - and the result was that a big majority of the public became more convinced that he had broken the rules and should be sacked!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

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

'Exclusive: Dominic Cummings did breach coronavirus lockdown guidelines, Durham Police say'

Investigation concludes Boris Johnson's most senior aide did commit a 'minor breach' of the lockdown rules when he drove to Barnard Castle

Quote:

---

Dominic Cummings did break lockdown rules when he made a 50-mile journey to Barnard Castle, an investigation by Durham Police has concluded.

The Prime Minister’s most senior aide claimed he made the trip on Easter Sunday, with his wife and four-year-old son, to check he was fit to drive after suffering coronavirus-related eyesight problems.

Mr Cummings insisted he had acted “lawfully and reasonably” at all times when he made the 260-mile journey from London to Durham to self-isolate at his parents’ farm at the end of March.

But The Telegraph has learned that an investigation by Durham Police has concluded he did commit a "minor breach" of the guidelines when he drove to Barnard Castle on April 12.

However the force, which according to the most recent data, has issued 137 fines for lockdown breaches, said it would not be taking any further action against Mr Cummings.

---

He breached the guidelines but only a "minor breach" apparently. Is that now enough for the Govt. to not be able to keep parroting that "he kept to the guidelines"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

'Exclusive: Dominic Cummings did breach coronavirus lockdown guidelines, Durham Police say'

Investigation concludes Boris Johnson's most senior aide did commit a 'minor breach' of the lockdown rules when he drove to Barnard Castle


He breached the guidelines but only a "minor breach" apparently. Is that now enough for the Govt. to not be able to keep parroting that "he kept to the guidelines"?

---

Minor or otherwise it begs the question who in the highest levels of government actually understands the rules they're instructing us all to keep to? None of those at the top apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

'Exclusive: Dominic Cummings did breach coronavirus lockdown guidelines, Durham Police say'

Investigation concludes Boris Johnson's most senior aide did commit a 'minor breach' of the lockdown rules when he drove to Barnard Castle


He breached the guidelines but only a "minor breach" apparently. Is that now enough for the Govt. to not be able to keep parroting that "he kept to the guidelines"?

---

When I was young, people in politics used to "fall on their sword" even when they weren't really guilty of much (for example, I couldn't really see why Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary over the Falklands War), but that all changed a long time ago. Now, people cling on to their jobs for as long as they can and sometimes managed to brazen it through their crisis, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before. Hopefully, for the good of the country, I'm wrong, but nothing that's happened so far has been enough to get Cummings out, so I don't really see why this will alter anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloo

Minor or otherwise it begs the question who in the highest levels of government actually understands the rules they're instructing us all to keep to? None of those at the top apparently.

---

It's a far more serious breach than Professor Ferguson's the SAGE member and modeller deemed to be essential to the COVID-19 response. All he did was stay at home while his girlfriend came around for booty call but was required to resign as a consequence. And what about Cummings returning to Downing St when he should have been self isolating? The whole thing is a farce. He should have been sacked as soon as the story broke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vindec

It's a far more serious breach than Professor Ferguson's the SAGE member and modeller deemed to be essential to the COVID-19 response. All he did was stay at home while his girlfriend came around for booty call but was required to resign as a consequence. And what about Cummings returning to Downing St when he should have been self isolating? The whole thing is a farce. He should have been sacked as soon as the story broke.

---

This feels like a tiny 'case now closed' concession to me.

From BBC:

13:30
PM considers Cummings issue closed - No 10
Boris Johnson is standing by his top aide Dominic Cummings, following the Durham Police findings.

A No 10 spokesman said: "The police have made clear they are taking no action against Mr Cummings over his self-isolation and that going to Durham did not breach the regulations.

"The prime minister has said he believes Mr Cummings behaved reasonably and legally given all the circumstances, and he regards this issue as closed."

and

Durham Constabulary said it views "this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing" during the trip.

You have to leave your car to breach regulations? That wasn't made clear in the guidelines.

Also, as much as Boris Johnson believes this matter to be over, it is very far away from being over.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...h-consequences

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

It is a desperate defence.

Most of the newspaper claims were confirmed by Cummings himself. The only significant one to have been dropped was the allegation (never presented as fact) that he had gone back up to Durham a week after returning to London.

The main problem with blaming 'false stories' is that Cummings had an hour in the Downing Street garden in front of the world's media to give his own version of events - and the result was that a big majority of the public became more convinced that he had broken the rules and should be sacked!

---

Your comment about the return trip was interesting. There was a picture in the Telegraph last week of a bloke who runs and antique shop or similar in Barnards Castle and he looks just like DC.

He commented that is frequently called Dominic and until the news broke he never knew why

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

From BBC:

13:30
PM considers Cummings issue closed - No 10
Boris Johnson is standing by his top aide Dominic Cummings, following the Durham Police findings.

A No 10 spokesman said: "The police have made clear they are taking no action against Mr Cummings over his self-isolation and that going to Durham did not breach the regulations.

"The prime minister has said he believes Mr Cummings behaved reasonably and legally given all the circumstances, and he regards this issue as closed."

and

Durham Constabulary said it views "this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing" during the trip.

You have to leave your car to breach regulations? That wasn't made clear in the guidelines.

Also, as much as Boris Johnson believes this matter to be over, it is very far away from being over.

---

Still after his blood then!