Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[surge]

Not too long ago Cummins was the most vilified person in the UK and people were trying to have him prosecuted for going to Durham when he said he didn't go. Horrible man, peop0le generally agreed, being protected by the government.
now, suddenly, everything he says must be right (According to the BBC yesterday).....

Which bit did you watch? That's not what was said on BBC's Newsnight.

[lardy]

Not too long ago Cummins was the most vilified person in the UK and people were trying to have him prosecuted for going to Durham when he said he didn't go. Horrible man, peop0le generally agreed, being protected by the government.
now, suddenly, everything he says must be right (According to the BBC yesterday). you can't have it both ways.
I'd suggest that the truth probably lie somewhere in the middle.
What he is saying he is saying to a parliamentary committee and he can say anything he likes without fear of any comeback. But if all the things he says are true why didn't he resign on a point of principle and go to the press with what he allegedly knew then?
The other problem is, like with people remembering things later, people don't remember 100%, they remember their own memory but that is changed by the brain which absorbs thoughts that may have been thought when the person was remembering earlier and by the clamour of media all around them every day, so when the stand up and tell what they saw it is their adjusted memory that is talking, so people hearing must allow for it.
One thing is pretty sure though, he don't like Hancock much.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm quite enjoying the irony of a man who said whatever was needed to get things done his way, including as we all know lying through every orifice, is now in a position where he desperately needs anyone to believe him.

That's why he came across so limp and pathetic.

[xsnaggle]

Which bit did you watch? That's not what was said on BBC's Newsnight.

I was listening to the 1PM radio programme and later to PM at 5 PM on radio4.

[the other bob wilson]

I don't know about anyone else but I'm quite enjoying the irony of a man who said whatever was needed to get things done his way, including as we all know lying through every orifice, is now in a position where he desperately needs anyone to believe him.

That's why he came across so limp and pathetic.

I take it you’re talking about Cummings? Did you think all he said was lies? For myself, I’m enjoying the irony of a Prime Minister, Ministers and MPs who were rushing to Cummings’ defence this time last year now trying to have us believe that he’s a serial liar, not to be trusted - if they were right last year, what does that say about them now and if they were wrong then, what does it say about their judgment?

[A Quiet Monkfish]

I take it you’re talking about Cummings? Did you think all he said was lies? For myself, I’m enjoying the irony of a Prime Minister, Ministers and MPs who were rushing to Cummings’ defence this time last year now trying to have us believe that he’s a serial liar, not to be trusted - if they were right last year, what does that say about them now and if they were wrong then, what does it say about their judgment?

What he's said probably has some truth in it. However, someone who takes photos of whiteboards on his phone so he can from use them in evidence a year later would suggest Cummings was the creepy little rat even then - so I would take anything anecdotal from him with a large dose of salt..

[The Lone Gunman]

What he's said probably has some truth in it. However, someone who takes photos of whiteboards on his phone so he can use them in evidence a year later would suggest Cummings was the creepy little rat even then.

You reckon that's what he was doing? You reckon a year ago (or whenever it was), Cummings knew the whole Covid-19 response would go tits-up and he knew he would be sacked, so he took a picture of the whiteboard so he could use it in evidence at a parliamentary hearing?

I don't. I reckon he took a picture of it as opposed to take physical notes of what was written on it - something that happens in office meetings I attend on a very regular basis.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Cummings , Johnson , Hancock , Patel , Gove

Feck em all , tory vermin

[goats]

You mean Johnson? It's happened to him at least twice (once for lying) and yet slightly more than one in three think he is telling the truth about the Pandemic (bless em).

Still, imagine what it would have been like if Corbyn had won.

We’d all be dead.....

[goats]

I take it you’re talking about Cummings? Did you think all he said was lies? For myself, I’m enjoying the irony of a Prime Minister, Ministers and MPs who were rushing to Cummings’ defence this time last year now trying to have us believe that he’s a serial liar, not to be trusted - if they were right last year, what does that say about them now and if they were wrong then, what does it say about their judgment?

Politicians lie for a living dont they? They always have, Bliar and Brown being some of the worst of the lot. Still, they were just Tories anyway (by the end of their reign anyway, at the beginning you all loved them)

[Hilts]

I take it you’re talking about Cummings? Did you think all he said was lies? For myself, I’m enjoying the irony of a Prime Minister, Ministers and MPs who were rushing to Cummings’ defence this time last year now trying to have us believe that he’s a serial liar, not to be trusted - if they were right last year, what does that say about them now and if they were wrong then, what does it say about their judgment?

Exactly.

Even on here we had a Tory boy claiming that Cummings child was autistic and that changes everything about the trip to Durham.

[lardy]

I take it you’re talking about Cummings? Did you think all he said was lies? For myself, I’m enjoying the irony of a Prime Minister, Ministers and MPs who were rushing to Cummings’ defence this time last year now trying to have us believe that he’s a serial liar, not to be trusted - if they were right last year, what does that say about them now and if they were wrong then, what does it say about their judgment?

I don't think everything he said was lies, but I also wouldn't accept it all either. 12 months ago he probably quite liked the reputation he had built up, but it's not done him any favours now.

And yes, the MPs who defended him have also painted themselves into a corner.

[Rjk]

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/stat...945286658?s=19

[A Quiet Monkfish]

You reckon that's what he was doing? You reckon a year ago (or whenever it was), Cummings knew the whole Covid-19 response would go tits-up and he knew he would be sacked, so he took a picture of the whiteboard so he could use it in evidence at a parliamentary hearing?

I don't. I reckon he took a picture of it as opposed to take physical notes of what was written on it - something that happens in office meetings I attend on a very regular basis.

Conjecture either way. Whatever the initial reason, I doubt roughly scrawled notes in a brainstorming session were ever intended for public viewing..

[life on mars]

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/stat...945286658?s=19

The lady has written what I thought .

[the other bob wilson]

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/statu...029774336?s=20

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Not too long ago Cummins was the most vilified person in the UK and people were trying to have him prosecuted for going to Durham when he said he didn't go. Horrible man, peop0le generally agreed, being protected by the government.
now, suddenly, everything he says must be right (According to the BBC yesterday). you can't have it both ways.
I'd suggest that the truth probably lie somewhere in the middle.
What he is saying he is saying to a parliamentary committee and he can say anything he likes without fear of any comeback. But if all the things he says are true why didn't he resign on a point of principle and go to the press with what he allegedly knew then?
The other problem is, like with people remembering things later, people don't remember 100%, they remember their own memory but that is changed by the brain which absorbs thoughts that may have been thought when the person was remembering earlier and by the clamour of media all around them every day, so when the stand up and tell what they saw it is their adjusted memory that is talking, so people hearing must allow for it.
One thing is pretty sure though, he don't like Hancock much.

Where does the BBC state that Cummings' claims are true?

[Rjk]

Not too long ago Cummins was the most vilified person in the UK and people were trying to have him prosecuted for going to Durham when he said he didn't go. Horrible man, peop0le generally agreed, being protected by the government.
now, suddenly, everything he says must be right (According to the BBC yesterday). you can't have it both ways.
I'd suggest that the truth probably lie somewhere in the middle.
What he is saying he is saying to a parliamentary committee and he can say anything he likes without fear of any comeback. But if all the things he says are true why didn't he resign on a point of principle and go to the press with what he allegedly knew then?
The other problem is, like with people remembering things later, people don't remember 100%, they remember their own memory but that is changed by the brain which absorbs thoughts that may have been thought when the person was remembering earlier and by the clamour of media all around them every day, so when the stand up and tell what they saw it is their adjusted memory that is talking, so people hearing must allow for it.
One thing is pretty sure though, he don't like Hancock much.

If the truth is "somewhere in the middle" which parts of what he was saying do you not believe?

Because there is an awful lot of evidence out there for a lot of it.

the "herd immunity" policy
Hancock lying about all people being returned to care homes being tested first
10s of thousands of people needlessly died
which parts aren't you convinced by?

[the other bob wilson]

To think that everything Cummings said was the truth is daft as is arguing that Johnson/Hancock are wrong in all they say - such black and white perspectives are why this country is more divided than I can ever remember it being. In saying that, although Cummings was unconvincing for me at times, much of what he said seemed plausible and was just a rehash of things that were in the public domain already.

By the same token, Hancock seemed wholly unconvincing to me when he spoke about what was happening in care homes last spring and the link I posted yesterday showed that he was, being charitable, mistaken in his claim that tens of thousands of people were being vaccinated in Bolton every day.

[surge]

Hancock asked specifically whether he gave the assurance to Cummings and others that patients would be tested before discharge to social care

Hancock glosses over saying “so many” of the allegations were unsubstantiated but doesn’t specifically refute it

He then goes off on a tangent about how the Scottish government made the same mistake about discharge.

Indeed they did. Difference is the Scottish government is not maintaining they put a protective ring in place as they did so.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/st...59475231498242

It is being incorrectly reported this morning that this new PHE report shows just 1.6% of care home outbreaks were seeded from hospital discharges.

It says 1.6% were seeded from *confirmed* Covid-positive patients. Most were *not being tested*!

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/sta...84022472335362

I'd rather go for a drink with Hancock than Cummings but can find it believable that Hancock was (and is) being kept in a job so could be sacked at the right time.

Probably should add that reports suggest Hancock has long backed vaccines to get us out of this mess while others opposed lockdown including, if media reports accurate, Sunak in the autumn/winter.

[xsnaggle]

Where does the BBC state that Cummings' claims are true?

I give in clever man, where does the BBC say his claims are true?

If you read my post you will grasp that I was listening to the radio and therefore it isn't written anywhere. I'll give you the benefit of knowing that, which leaves the question of why did you ask when you knew there was nothing.
The aggressive questioning but the presenters on both programmes. All their questioned were predicated on the assumption that what he said was right and how could Johnson/Hancock possibly deny them. And when they interviewed someone who appeared not to agree with that premise they continued to press them over and over again to agree that it was so.

As I have said here before, it is all too easy for people to demand 'proof' and 'links' without having to actually engage in any thought themselves are having to actually voice a personal opinion. God forefend.
That type of questioning is quite normal for those programmes

[xsnaggle]

If the truth is "somewhere in the middle" which parts of what he was saying do you not believe?

Because there is an awful lot of evidence out there for a lot of it.

the "herd immunity" policy
Hancock lying about all people being returned to care homes being tested first
10s of thousands of people needlessly died
which parts aren't you convinced by?

I struggle to believe factually anything he says, as everybody did when he went to Durham. I read an article today written by someone woo has worked with him who says he has enormous difficulty in actually admitting he is in any way responsible for when something goes wrong even when he is part of the team, and he pointed out that he did exactly the same in the committee, he apologised initially and from then on blamed everyone but himself.
There is almost certainly kernels of truth in what he says but finding them when you take away the bile lack of any admission of real fault and the revenge and you'd be hard pushed to find them.
In a few months he will be forgotten. And if he keeps coming back with more 'Revelations' he will become less and less plausible.
If he felt so strongly about everything why didn't he resign and go to the press at the time? That alone questions his motives if not his veracity.
there may be proof out there, but this modern information world being what it is for every piece of information that says A there will be another that say B.
I wouldn't like to be the person with the job of unravelling it all and coming up with the real answers at the end of it all.

And now I'm going to the pub - - because I can But God knows for how long!

[cyril evans awaydays]

I give in clever man, where does the BBC say his claims are true?

If you read my post you will grasp that I was listening to the radio and therefore it isn't written anywhere. I'll give you the benefit of knowing that, which leaves the question of why did you ask when you knew there was nothing.
The aggressive questioning but the presenters on both programmes. All their questioned were predicated on the assumption that what he said was right and how could Johnson/Hancock possibly deny them. And when they interviewed someone who appeared not to agree with that premise they continued to press them over and over again to agree that it was so.

As I have said here before, it is all too easy for people to demand 'proof' and 'links' without having to actually engage in any thought themselves are having to actually voice a personal opinion. God forefend.
That type of questioning is quite normal for those programmes

Do you think that journalists challenging people of power of whatever persuasion should shy away from asking awkward questions or just show respect for their rank?

[Hilts]

I sort of begrudgingly admire the Tory boys loyalty to this shambolic government.

[xsnaggle]

Do you think that journalists challenging people of power of whatever persuasion should shy away from asking awkward questions or just show respect for their rank?

No I don't. But when they try to ask a question 6 or 7 different ways because they do not like the answer they are given, then it is stupid.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I give in clever man, where does the BBC say his claims are true?

If you read my post you will grasp that I was listening to the radio and therefore it isn't written anywhere. I'll give you the benefit of knowing that, which leaves the question of why did you ask when you knew there was nothing.
The aggressive questioning but the presenters on both programmes. All their questioned were predicated on the assumption that what he said was right and how could Johnson/Hancock possibly deny them. And when they interviewed someone who appeared not to agree with that premise they continued to press them over and over again to agree that it was so.

As I have said here before, it is all too easy for people to demand 'proof' and 'links' without having to actually engage in any thought themselves are having to actually voice a personal opinion. God forefend.
That type of questioning is quite normal for those programmes

I merely questioned what you wrote but your response is rather confusing. And something can be stated verbally, you know.