Will Cummings go?

[SeagullinExile]

Someone else who has misjudged the public mood.

Sent from my BTV-DL09 using Tapatalk

Just a tad.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Lol it’s the same media everyone’s been moaning at for the last so many weeks over asking inane questions...now they are seen as doing a cracking job

Going for a wonder around woodvale cemetery, it's like a mini paradise on my doorstep

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[Bodian]

Absolutely 100% certain yes. There never has been a specific offence of just being outside and travelling.

Yes there is/was. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

Regulation 6 states "no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse" - and then lists the excuses. So, it was a specific offence to be outside and travelling unless you had a reasonable excuse as listed. It's not 'you can go out and about if you have one of these excuses' - it's 'it's an offence to be out and about unless you have one of these excuses'. That's a significant difference in law.

A similar thing exists about farmers shooting dogs. It is obviously a criminal offence to shoot a dog belonging to someone else - but a farmer can escape prosecution by using the defence that the only way of stopping that specific dog whilst in the act of worrying his sheep was to shoot it. But, the law does not say 'a farmer is legally allowed to shoot a dog that is worrying sheep'. It is a defence against the general crime.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Yes, its at

http://chng.it/RhfWG6Qb

Thank you. All signed.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Going for a wonder around woodvale cemetery, it's like a mini paradise on my doorstep

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

Way to spend a bank holiday Monday

 

[The Fifth Column]

Yes there is/was. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

Regulation 6 states "no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse" - and then lists the excuses. So, it was a specific offence to be outside and travelling unless you had a reasonable excuse as listed. It's not 'you can go out and about if you have one of these excuses' - it's 'it's an offence to be out and about unless you have one of these excuses'. That's a significant difference in law.

A similar thing exists about farmers shooting dogs. It is obviously a criminal offence to shoot a dog belonging to someone else - but a farmer can escape prosecution by using the defence that the only way of stopping that specific dog whilst in the act of worrying his sheep was to shoot it. But, the law does not say 'a farmer is legally allowed to shoot a dog that is worrying sheep'. It is a defence against the general crime.

Again wrong, that is a regulation not an offence, two different things. The regulation states, 'no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse' , if you breached that then the offence would be 'A person who (a) without reasonable excuse contravenes a requirement in regulation 4, 5, 7 or 8, or (b) contravenes a requirement in regulation 6, commits an offence. So as I said, just being outside and travelling is not an offence because there are reasonable excuses. Its splitting hairs and a moot point really because he's claiming a reasonable excuse therefore has not committed an offence.

 

[A1X]

Yesterday was dominated by questions about DC when it should have been about the number of people of dying, the economical problems, the care home disaster, the 35,000 deaths.

This is massively disproportionate over one mans actions when there are so many more important things to discuss.

A large part of the problem is that the Downing Street press conferences have always been in the hands of the political units, rather than the science / health ones, and that goes for all the media outlets. Which is why the questioning was often quite weak in the first few weeks as it's highly unlikely any top political journalist is also an expert on pandemic management or hospital procedures. The flip-side is as we see now, what political journalists specialise in more than anything else is "political scandal", which is why the laser focus on this. It's their home turf, their bread and butter.

 

[The Clamp]

Again wrong, that is a regulation not an offence, two different things. The regulation states, 'no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse' , if you breached that then the offence would be 'A person who (a) without reasonable excuse contravenes a requirement in regulation 4, 5, 7 or 8, or (b) contravenes a requirement in regulation 6, commits an offence. So as I said, just being outside and travelling is not an offence because there are reasonable excuses. Its splitting hairs and a moot point really because he's claiming a reasonable excuse therefore has not committed an offence.

Stop being a prick. He’s breached his own regulations and No.10 are being a bunch of cvnts about it. End of.

 

[CHAPPERS]

[tweet]1264865069193670657[/tweet]

 

[lawros left foot]

Again wrong, that is a regulation not an offence, two different things. The regulation states, 'no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse' , if you breached that then the offence would be 'A person who (a) without reasonable excuse contravenes a requirement in regulation 4, 5, 7 or 8, or (b) contravenes a requirement in regulation 6, commits an offence. So as I said, just being outside and travelling is not an offence because there are reasonable excuses. Its splitting hairs and a moot point really because he's claiming a reasonable excuse therefore has not committed an offence.

It’s all semantics.
I believe he broke the law, you don’t.
I don’t believe he couldn’t get appropriate childcare in London, you do.

I also believe he went to Durham more than once.
He has no credibility in my eyes.

 

[The Fifth Column]

Stop being a prick. He’s breached his own regulations and No.10 are being a bunch of cvnts about it. End of.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Has he broken the law? I can't see that he has, neither can the police apparently. Has he breached any regulations? Not by the definition, he is claiming to have a reasonable excuse. Has he acted selfishly and not given any thought to the potential consequences like a lot of other parents of a young vulnerable child may have? almost certainly.

 

[The Clamp]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Has he broken the law? I can't see that he has, neither can the police apparently. Has he breached any regulations? Not by the definition, he is claiming to have a reasonable excuse. Has he acted selfishly and not given any thought to the potential consequences like a lot of other parents of a young vulnerable child may have? almost certainly.

He broke the law. By anyone’s definition. Including his own. Why the police haven’t acted yet is to be seen. Maybe he has mitigating circumstances. But he broke the law. His response has been woeful.

 

[GT49er]

[tweet]1264865069193670657[/tweet]

I'm no fan of Twitter, but that tweet (parts 1 to 6 too) absolutely nails it.

 

[Bodian]

Again wrong, that is a regulation not an offence, two different things. The regulation states, 'no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse' , if you breached that then the offence would be 'A person who (a) without reasonable excuse contravenes a requirement in regulation 4, 5, 7 or 8, or (b) contravenes a requirement in regulation 6, commits an offence. So as I said, just being outside and travelling is not an offence because there are reasonable excuses. Its splitting hairs and a moot point really because he's claiming a reasonable excuse therefore has not committed an offence.

? Yes - you seem to be quoting regulation 9, which makes contravening reg 6 an offence.

Reg 6 says you can't go out, unless....

So - it was an offence. Hence the involvement of the Police.

 

[father_and_son]

I don't think that the press will let up on this until he does go. He has done something at time of national crisis that has united a large section of the country against the government's stance. Backbench Tory MPs are complaining about the optics of them having to support him and at this stage, The Mail has turned and there is very little sign of the Sun getting off the fence and backing Johnson in the face of their readers' outrage.

Underneath the story there is also a bit of Realpolitik going on. The media know that Cummings was behind this government's circumnavigation of them: issuing statements via social media, refusing to send government representatives to face the Today Programme music, etc. At a time of financial crisis for journalism, a story like this is a bit of a godsend. Media outlets will be like a pack of dogs this week trying to get more on this story.

Those who like Cummings will claim foul play and argue that he isn't getting fair treatment, but the current available facts leave them sounding like the tiny minority of Brighton fans who tried to argue that Andone slipped against Southampton. The old cliche with spindoctors/Spads is that when you become the story, you're finished. The longer Johnson tries to buck this, the longer the story will run and the more damage it will do him.

All of this may sound unfair, but Cummings' downfall would be a very good thing for democracy in the UK. This is not about whether he is left or right, or Brexit or Remain, it is about his willingness to trash the rules of the game, and with that, any possibility that a government can be held to account by a sense of shared morality. Those who like his politics may claim that all is fair in love and war, but would be rightly outraged should the opposition find success with similar tactics. The polarisation in the US shows that democracies fail when agreed norms are not adhered to by all sides. We don't want political parties gerrymandering, replacing neutral civil servants with political appointees, making up their own rules or their own truths, or attacking the courts if the law threatens their agenda. This crisis has shown why it is important for a nation to have trust in its institutions and it seems fitting that a disregard for this will be both the motivation and the fatal flaw in Cumming's personal Shakespearian tragedy.

Excellent post!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Cummings will be creaming himself over the exposure. Biggest boost to his monster ego ever - which far outweighs his personal appraisal of his intellectual self. Utterly pathetic that such an unelected muppet psycho appears to be feeding all the steer to the most shockingly dreadful PM 'we' ever elected. Lucky for all of us that These Days Will Pass. As will these c***s

 

[The Fifth Column]

It’s all semantics.
I believe he broke the law, you don’t.
I don’t believe he couldn’t get appropriate childcare in London, you do.

I also believe he went to Durham more than once.
He has no credibility in my eyes.

I've never commented on his childcare considerations. I've read some accounts (not being mentioned by the gutter press and media) that a close family member of the Cummings died that weekend (of Covid19) and was close to DC. Perhaps this is why he travelled along with his own impending diagnosis, wife's Covid19 and worries over childcare. May not have been in line with any guidance, may have been perfectly legit but I would have done the same under those circumstances. Abuse me, call me a prick all you want, water off a ducks back.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I've never commented on his childcare considerations. I've read some accounts (not being mentioned by the gutter press and media) that a close family member of the Cummings died that weekend (of Covid19) and was close to DC. Perhaps this is why he travelled along with his own impending diagnosis, wife's Covid19 and worries over childcare. May not have been in line with any guidance, may have been perfectly legit but I would have done the same under those circumstances. Abuse me, call me a prick all you want, water off a ducks back.

His uncle died; in London.

 

[The Fifth Column]

? Yes - you seem to be quoting regulation 9, which makes contravening reg 6 an offence.

Reg 6 says you can't go out, unless....

So - it was an offence. Hence the involvement of the Police.

You're clutching at straws now. The police are duty bound to investigate IF an offence has been alleged, that doesn't make it an offence just because the police were involved however much you want it to be. The police decided that no offence had occurred, that's good enough for me rather than the baying masses on here. If that changes and he ends up being prosecuted I will admit I am wrong and apologise.

 

[rogersix]

Again wrong, that is a regulation not an offence, two different things. The regulation states, 'no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse' , if you breached that then the offence would be 'A person who (a) without reasonable excuse contravenes a requirement in regulation 4, 5, 7 or 8, or (b) contravenes a requirement in regulation 6, commits an offence. So as I said, just being outside and travelling is not an offence because there are reasonable excuses. Its splitting hairs and a moot point really because he's claiming a reasonable excuse therefore has not committed an offence.

bit desperate