Dominic Cummings

[android]

Are you saying it was true he’d written about coronavirus in 2019?

My post that you quoted is a summary of all I know on the subject Martin.
Do you think that Durham police lied about their dealings with the Cummings family?

[Paul Waine]

I think he's trying to post a load of waffle so he doesn't even have to address the actual question about the addition of the paragraph.

Watching DSR and Paul over the last few days has been like having our very own poundshop Dom's on this forum. All Paul had to do was say what an idiot or even just not get involved and instead he has ended up showing everyone what a disingenuous person he really is

Hi DA, no waffle. No hiding from the question. I'm trying to get at the facts, rather than just follow along with everyone else. You know I don't need to do what you want others to do. And, there's nothing disingenuous about my posts. I'm very open. You may have noticed I don't use a pseudonym to keep my identity anonymous.

No worries. Be great if you could assist me, "step up a little" and leave the less social stuff aside from this mb.

EDIT: I hadn't seen your later comments about me to android when I posted above. I repeat my request, can you help me make raise the social nature of this mb.

[Devils_Advocate]

Evidently, on the day of his trip to Barnard Castle, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), agreeded a partnership deal with Sanofi, a French company, to produce a vaccine, using Gov funding.

GSK are in Barnard Castle.

Funny that...

As exciting as it might seem to those really wanting to lay the boot in to Cummings I think we need to be cautious about what we accuse Cummings of otherwise you'll look like the tin hat conspiracy theorist

A high level meeting on Easter Sunday between Cummimgs and Big Pharma seems unlikely and the Bernard Castle story is bad enough without needing to load it up with an unsubstantiated claim

If there was more to that coincidence then just wait until someone credible gets the facts and in the meantime hold him to account for what we know he has done

[android]

Just to clarify what Cummings said yesterday

“Only last year I wrote explicitly about the danger of coronaviruses”.

As Faisal Islam notes

"he literally told us to read his blog about his warnings on this topic - but the only warning on his blog I can find is re protecting biolabs from attack, not eg wet markets, or a virus with no vaccine or treatments"

I don't think that is the full quote on what Cummings said about pandemic risk is it? I don't recall it being very long but it was a little more than that I think.

It seems Faisal might be being economical with the truth himself there. Cummings blog referred to lots of viruses throughout the article so is Faisal suggesting that Cummings added much more than a paragraph in April then? The main focus of Cummings blog and the linked article was virus leaks from labs but did Cummings say yesterday that he had warned about wet markets - I don't recall Cummings mentioning them?

[Greenmile]

Thanks, DA. I'd noticed that DC used a lot of bold text. Appreciate your further details on what way back machine is telling us.

Hmm, when I go to the link all way back gives me is a blank page. I guess I need to run a query on DC's blog. I'm going to have to leave that until later.

I'm happy to agree that coronavirus wasn't in the original. DC quotes the anthrax example from the GAO report - I assume that was in the original and then later inserts "The report describes yet another well-publicized incident in China...." If we hadn't got a coronavirus crisis on-going now - and it originated in China - I can see why this second example wouldn't have been mentioned in the original 2019 blog.

Do we know "the GAO report" he mentions? DC doesn't appear to include any references or links (unless I'm missing them).

Did DC say he wrote about "coronavirus" in 2019, or did he say he wrote about pandemics? It's a pity one of the journos wasn't able to ask "when was that?" Or, "which blog was that?" I'm not even sure the blog we are looking at is about pandemics, the subject is bio-security of BSL3/4 labs.

However, my memory (I could be wrong) is that DC was responding to the a lot of the previous comments about him and seeking to offer something that shows that "he is a guy that cares about people...." I didn't get the impression that these were part of his prepared remarks. So, also don't make a link between his blog, including his coronavirus edit and his very unusual press conference yesterday afternoon.

I know you will disagree. If I was on the jury I'd be in the "not guilty" of this specific charge of "preparing and executing a premeditated lie."

It was interesting looking at DC's blog. He's not going to have many friends in "the establishment" with the challenging stuff he writes.

Effective action #4b: ‘Expertise’, prediction and noise, from the NHS killing people to Brexit - part of his Unrecognised Simplicities of Effective Action series confirms he's not a Conservative.

I read a BBC profile of DC earlier today. They credit DC with the "levelling up" agenda - and moving money and government out of London. I didn't know that.

So you don’t think he was lying when he said "only last year I wrote explicitly about the danger of coronaviruses", despite the fact you’ve been presented with evidence which shows that, not only did he write no such thing, but that he fabricated evidence in order to suggest he did?

I’m not sure android’s description of you as someone who “always comes across as interested in the truth” is standing up to much scrutiny here.

[AndrewJB]

I'm baffled by the amount of people who view this through party political eyes.

It's not about left and right it's about right and wrong.

Why are so many traditional Conservatives condemning Dominic Cummings because they know he's in the wrong and his actions are damaging both for the country and their party.

If this government aren't careful they'll quickly find themselves plunging in the polls,and becoming increasingly lampooned.

5 days have been wasted on all this Cummings malarkey,precisely at the time when all the government's attention should be focused on laying out their preparations for easing lockdown.

The government IS party political, to the detriment of the country.

Why else would the AG lend Cummings her support via a tweet, when she’s supposed to be there to guide the government on points of law, which Cummings at the very least broke the spirit of? Most of the cabinet have attempted to defend the indefensible. And it’s purely political. They are actually putting the country, and the medical message around Covid in jeopardy for purely political reasons. It’s extremely cavalier.

In London TFL has hit a wall. Forced to maintain services on a fraction of passenger numbers they had to ask for a bailout to keep going. The government imposed conditions which amounted to a takeover in the direction. Above inflation fare rises, an end to free travel for students, and a temporary one for pensioners. Right there in one small action - it’s the government using this crisis for political ends. It’s in everything they do.

[ksrclaret]

What a dangerous man we have running the country. Lie after lie after lie. Not even lies that are really half truths. Blatant, provable lies.

And now the Health Department are unable to provide figures on how many people were tested in the last few days, just under a week before we roll out our 'world beating' test-track-trace system. Wonder what else has kept them all busy. We're bang in the sh1t.

[Paul Waine]

This! The definition of ‘vulnerable person’ has been clear pretty much from the start of this, over 70 or with a medical condition. It was those people who were told to be most careful.

What I don’t get about dsr’s argument is that on the school thread he’s been one of those wanting 4 year olds back at school saying they are less likely to catch and/or transmit the virus but on this thread is arguing 4 year olds are ‘vulnerable’.

Hi martin, there are many reasons why a child can be vulnerable, it doesn't have to be vulnerable specific to covid-19 infection.

[android]

Sorry but you are way off with your appraisal and the only truth he is interested in is one that supports his own political views and he will do what ever he can to deflect, disrupt and discredit any discussion where his political viewpoint is being shown to be in the wrong or problematic.

There are a fair few posters with different views to me who I enjoy discussing and even some who I constantly disagree and argue with but as long as they are being truthful and arguing in good faith I am happy.

I'll give you an example that yesterday morning I posted showing all the Tory MPs tweeting out a copy and paste job having a go at them. Later that day I saw Labour MPs doing similar and posted that having a go at Labour. That is something you will not see someone like Paul do and as I have said I have never even seen him accept any criticism of the Torys and will always try and make an excuse. If that in your opinion is the action of someone who comes across as always interested in the truth then that says more about you than me

I did notice your posting of the Labour MPs copied tweets. A cynic might think it was a soft way to burnish your see both sides credentials - not me obviously!

I'm happy with whatever my defence of PW says about me.

Would you be willing to answer my question?

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't think that is the full quote on what Cummings said about pandemic risk is it? I don't recall it being very long but it was a little more than that I think.

It seems Faisal might be being economical with the truth himself there. Cummings blog referred to lots of viruses throughout the article so is Faisal suggesting that Cummings added much more than a paragraph in April then? The main focus of Cummings blog and the linked article was virus leaks from labs but did Cummings say yesterday that he had warned about wet markets - I don't recall Cummings mentioning them?

Course its not the full quote cos he spoke for over 30 mins but it is a direct uninterrupted quote not taken out of context.

He said “Only last year I wrote explicitly about the danger of coronaviruses” and the only thing he explicitly wrote about Coronavirus was made up and inserted into his blog last month.

He's blatantly lied and misrepresented himself in a national address where the very essence was a chance for him to give a full and honest account of himself.

If you dont think this is damning and brings into question any of his other claims we are meant to just take at face value then thats your choice but it seems the only people who are holding this kind of view are people who cannot see past the politics of the situation

I defer to Tiger76 who has summed up very well that this is not about the right or the left for the majority of us but about honesty, integrity and what it says to all the ordinary people making countless sacrifices throughout this crisis

[Zlatan]

Hi DA, no waffle. No hiding from the question. I'm trying to get at the facts, rather than just follow along with everyone else. You know I don't need to do what you want others to do. And, there's nothing disingenuous about my posts. I'm very open. You may have noticed I don't use a pseudonym to keep my identity anonymous.

No worries. Be great if you could assist me, "step up a little" and leave the less social stuff aside from this mb.

Paul, like DA (we’re not the same person remember) I would also like to know your thoughts on why Dominic Cummings lies during his statement. He had no reason to mention anything to do with his blog during his statement as it was not pertinent to his situation, yet he volunteered that he had written about coronavirus in 2019 - which with the actual irrefutable evidence from the wayback machine has been proven to be a lie?

What are your thoughts on it?

[Paul Waine]

Paul, also for info

https://fullfact.org/health/cummings-blog-coronavirus/

Thanks, Zlatan.

It's not the question did DC edit his blog? I agree that he did that. I'll accept Full Fact that it was done on 14-April. (That date wasn't clear to me from the way back images that was posted). I'm not convinced his edit was motivated by a plan to quote his blog as a "lie" in yesterday's press conference.

You will have seen my other posts. DC uses bold extensively in his blogs. I originally understood from DA's posted that the bold were indicated the edits that had been made - but, this was not clear, as DC often uses bold. (Also now confirmed by DA).

As for the fullfact link - I don't think DC was claiming to be warning about coronavirus. The blog wasn't doing that in either the original or the edited version. It was warning about security weaknesses in supposedly very secure bio-labs.

[Devils_Advocate]

I did notice your posting of the Labour MPs copied tweets. A cynic might think it was a soft way to burnish your see both sides credentials - not me obviously!

I'm happy with whatever my defence of PW says about me.

Would you be willing to answer my question?

Not you obviously but you'll bring it up and suggest it - what a coward you are and Ive seen you do this with Corbyn and Johnson when it comes to questions about racism.

Anyway remind me your question and I'll have a look but the way you have acted again just doesn't come across as someone looking for a discussion in good faith and if I think your question falls into that category then I wont answer - thats the price you pay for your kind of approach

[Zlatan]

Thanks, Zlatan.

It's not the question did DC edit his blog? I agree that he did that. I'll accept Full Fact that it was done on 14-April. (That date wasn't clear to me from the way back images that was posted). I'm not convinced his edit was motivated by a plan to quote his blog as a "lie" in yesterday's press conference.

You will have seen my other posts. DC uses bold extensively in his blogs. I originally understood from DA's posted that the bold were indicated the edits that had been made - but, this was not clear, as DC often uses bold. (Also now confirmed by DA).

As for the fullfact link - I don't think DC was claiming to be warning about coronavirus. The blog wasn't doing that in either the original or the edited version. It was warning about security weaknesses in supposedly very secure bio-labs.

Ok, so the blatant lie he came out with in his statement - your thoughts on that?

[martin_p]

Hi DA, no waffle. No hiding from the question. I'm trying to get at the facts, rather than just follow along with everyone else. You know I don't need to do what you want others to do. And, there's nothing disingenuous about my posts. I'm very open. You may have noticed I don't use a pseudonym to keep my identity anonymous.

No worries. Be great if you could assist me, "step up a little" and leave the less social stuff aside from this mb.

Yes, but you spend a lot of time researching and talking about the words in the blog then ask questions that are easy to find the answer to like ‘did DC say he wrote about coronavirus?’ Why can’t you find the answer to that simple question to help you form your opinion?

Devils Advocate will no doubt enjoy and quote this post.

[Damo]

I don’t want to crucify Cummings. I don’t think I’ve even said how I feel he should be reprimanded. My contributions to this thread have been asking people how they can defend his actions and subsequent lies. FWIW, a simple and humble apology probably would have sufficed in the first instance from my point of view. The barefaced lying was a step too far and worse than the initial act.

Secondly, I have never voted for Corbyn. In the last GE I voted for my local Labour candidate. I have already told you that I didn’t support Corbyn, and the very fact that he was the leader of the Labour Party made my decision at the last GE a difficult one. So please stop making things up.

But in any case, as I’ve just pointed out to stayingup, voting for one party in a two horse race is absolutely not showing support for that party. Surely you can see that?

For me this has absolutely nothing to do with the party in power and it has even less than nothing to do with Brexit. Just because I didn’t come on here and criticise Corbyn taking a photo sat on a train floor doesn’t mean I agreed with it. If he had come out to face the public and made a ridiculous cock and bull story about why he did so, whilst treating the general public with utter contempt, then I’m pretty sure I would have.

You vote Labour for the same reasons I vote tory.
I've stated a few times that I dont like the party, or the MP"s. They just run the country in a way that appeals to my circumstances, compared to the other options at the ballot box.
I cant think of a single MP that I think "I quite like them" they are all a bunch self serving @rseholes.
With regards to defending Cunnings actions, well I'm not as such. I think he's a tosser. I stated yesterday that I think he's lying through his teeth, and yet i still think this whole situation has been blown well out of proportion, and is politically motivated. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive I think you may agree.
Now I realise you may have thought I was defending him because of my comments (cant remember my exact words, I'm not long in from a walk and I cant be bothered to re read what I wrote) about Cunnings performance when he was being grilled by the press.
Again, I think it's ok to be impressed by that. Spijed said the same thing, and I'm fairly certain he isnt a tory or a fan of Cummings. Also I consider most of the people asking the questions as odious as the person answering them, so if you asked me to take sides there, I might have struggled. I could have, of course cleared that up by replying to Beamish's comment. I did intend to, but was busy at the time and felt a quick one liner wouldn't do it justice.
The "winding up the lefties" thing is just a bit of mischief on my part. I know most left leaning people wouldn't bat en eyelid at a remark like that. I was baiting the people who like to get into a bit of a froth about these things. Just like some of you do with people like ringo

[Paul Waine]

Your attack on Paul Waine is a low blow DA, although it did get you some likes from the gang, which seems a bit sad. PW is one of the best and most informative posters and always comes across as interested in the truth on a wide range of topics. A lot like you really but with a different political opinion.

Anyway, here's a test for the genuine open mindedness you claim. Cummings blog was based on and quoted at length a scientific article about pandemic virus risk. I think he originally highlighted ebola and bird flu, I'm guessing because they were presumably more attention grabbing at the time. But the linked article did also discuss coronaviruses in exactly the same context. The article & blog were not about one virus versus another - it was about the risk of any of these viruses escaping and creating a major pandemic. As you reported, in April he seems to have added the coronavirus example to the body of his blog. Perhaps he was trying to make himself look even cleverer (too clever by half) or, if he is anywhere near as machiavellian as has been made out, I wouldn't be surprised if he did it on purpose to draw attention to the fact that he had written about virus pandemic risks early last year. But is it enough to call his comment about this yesterday a lie?

Thanks for your comments, android. I've no problem with DA. He posts a lot of interesting stuff. I am keen that this mb develops a more social attitude, can explore topics together and we don't all need to end up in one gang or another.

My take on DC's blog is that he's warning about weak security in the bio-labs. Around the time he wrote the original blog, these labs had been given permission to work with live viruses again.

[Damo]

I’ll bite. What did Corbyn lie about?

I think the problem the Tories have, and this predates the massive liar that Is Johnson, is it’s a default setting for them. When parties go down this route - and Labour has before - it doesn’t end well.

Read back andrew. I listed a few. Or google it. I cant be bothered going over it again. I was just making a point

[Damo]

A lot of people view voting as their civic duty, even if they’re not keen on any of the options on offer.

I'm well aware of that. Let's hope the two options on the table are never, your head or your arm

[Devils_Advocate]

Yes, but you spend a lot of time researching and talking about the words in the blog then ask questions that are easy to find the answer to like ‘did DC say he wrote about coronavirus?’ Why can’t you find the answer to that simple question to help you form your opinion?

It just reminded me when you played him at his own game and he disappeared faster than rats deserting a sinking ship.

After playing his usual tricks around demanding unattainable evidence and deliberately taking things literally when the intention of the words were obvious he then posted his own article

You argued the literal meaning of the authors words (even though it was clear what was meant) and after a couple of huffs and puffs he vanished like magic

It was fun to see how he acted when somebody treated him how he treats everyone else

[ksrclaret]

My take on DC's blog is that he's warning about weak security in the bio-labs. Around the time he wrote the original blog, these labs had been given permission to work with live viruses again.

Fair play if you read his entire blog.

What do you think about him editing the blog about a month ago warning about coronavirus pandemic? You may want to consider it contained no mention of this warning until we were in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. You may also want to consider that he pretended he'd written it last year.

[Devils_Advocate]

Thanks for your comments, android. I've no problem with DA. He posts a lot of interesting stuff. I am keen that this mb develops a more social attitude, can explore topics together and we don't all need to end up in one gang or another.

My take on DC's blog is that he's warning about weak security in the bio-labs. Around the time he wrote the original blog, these labs had been given permission to work with live viruses again.

I'll end with my comments about you Paul because enough has been said and you are polite and come across as a nice person

I guess if I have a problem with thinking you argue in bad faith it is up to me to not engage with you. Its not always easy cos I see the potential of a good discussion I just often end up disappointed

[Zlatan]

My take on DC's blog is that he's warning about weak security in the bio-labs. Around the time he wrote the original blog, these labs had been given permission to work with live viruses again.

So absolutely nothing about warning about coronavirus in 2019 as he claimed during his statement yesterday in the Rose Garden. Please Paul, can you offer your actual personal thoughts on why he has clearly lied during a press conference where he had no actual need to?

[martin_p]

It just reminded me when you played him at his own game and he disappeared faster than rats deserting a sinking ship.

After playing his usual tricks around demanding unattainable evidence and deliberately taking things literally when the intention of the words were obvious he then posted his own article

You argued the literal meaning of the authors words (even though it was clear what was meant) and after a couple of huffs and puffs he vanished like magic

It was fun to see how he acted when somebody treated him how he treats everyone else

If you look at my post at 10:10pm you’ll find I predicted you’d quote my post

[Greenmile]

I'm well aware of that. Let's hope the two options on the table are never, your head or your arm

Sorry. I’d forgotten how you struggle with metaphor and analogy.

[aggi]

Hi martin, there are many reasons why a child can be vulnerable, it doesn't have to be vulnerable specific to covid-19 infection.

The piece of legislation that DSR was quoting was very specific on its definition of a vulnerable person. DSR was making the same mistake as you and ignoring that very specific definition and trying to apply a general definition where that wasn't correct.

[android]

Not you obviously but you'll bring it up and suggest it - what a coward you are and Ive seen you do this with Corbyn and Johnson when it comes to questions about racism.

Anyway remind me your question and I'll have a look but the way you have acted again just doesn't come across as someone looking for a discussion in good faith and if I think your question falls into that category then I wont answer - thats the price you pay for your kind of approach

A coward...price you pay will be disengagement. That all sounds like Turtle. If so, I would be glad, as I was sorry to see him disappear. Apologies or whatever is appropriate if you are not he. (No idea what the racism stuff is about and probably best to park that for another time unless you have withdrawn comms in future).

[Damo]

Sorry. I’d forgotten how you struggle with metaphor and analogy.

It's good that a layman like yourself is available to put it into your own terms then

[martin_p]

Hi martin, there are many reasons why a child can be vulnerable, it doesn't have to be vulnerable specific to covid-19 infection.

It does when it’s in the context of the COVID-19 legislation with a link to the actual definition of vulnerable.

[Rileybobs]

You vote Labour for the same reasons I vote tory.
I've stated a few times that I dont like the party, or the MP"s. They just run the country in a way that appeals to my circumstances, compared to the other options at the ballot box.
I cant think of a single MP that I think "I quite like them" they are all a bunch self serving @rseholes.
With regards to defending Cunnings actions, well I'm not as such. I think he's a tosser. I stated yesterday that I think he's lying through his teeth, and yet i still think this whole situation has been blown well out of proportion, and is politically motivated. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive I think you may agree.
Now I realise you may have thought I was defending him because of my comments (cant remember my exact words, I'm not long in from a walk and I cant be bothered to re read what I wrote) about Cunnings performance when he was being grilled by the press.
Again, I think it's ok to be impressed by that. Spijed said the same thing, and I'm fairly certain he isnt a tory or a fan of Cummings. Also I consider most of the people asking the questions as odious as the person answering them, so if you asked me to take sides there, I might have struggled. I could have, of course cleared that up by replying to Beamish's comment. I did intend to, but was busy at the time and felt a quick one liner wouldn't do it justice.
The "winding up the lefties" thing is just a bit of mischief on my part. I know most left leaning people wouldn't bat en eyelid at a remark like that. I was baiting the people who like to get into a bit of a froth about these things. Just like some of you do with people like ringo

I wouldn’t say ‘I vote Labour’. That’s the problem I’m trying to get across. I voted Labour in the last GE, who knows who I’ll vote for in the next one - although as it stands it would be a much easier decision than last time.

Too many seem to pin their colour to the mast and are unwilling to look objectively at the actions of the party they voted for. This thread is the absolute model example, because there is no credible way that someone can defend Cummings’ lying, even if they don’t see fault in his ‘judgement’ when flaunting the rules.

If your comments about lefties and remainers were, as you put it, a bit of mischief then fair enough. But those posts lead people like me to think that you’re making this into a left v right / remain v leave argument, which it clearly isn’t as proven by the number of Tory MP’s who have condemned Cummings’ behaviour.

[tiger76]

The government IS party political, to the detriment of the country.

Why else would the AG lend Cummings her support via a tweet, when she’s supposed to be there to guide the government on points of law, which Cummings at the very least broke the spirit of? Most of the cabinet have attempted to defend the indefensible. And it’s purely political. They are actually putting the country, and the medical message around Covid in jeopardy for purely political reasons. It’s extremely cavalier.

In London TFL has hit a wall. Forced to maintain services on a fraction of passenger numbers they had to ask for a bailout to keep going. The government imposed conditions which amounted to a takeover in the direction. Above inflation fare rises, an end to free travel for students, and a temporary one for pensioners. Right there in one small action - it’s the government using this crisis for political ends. It’s in everything they do.

I know your no fan if the Tories Andrew,but one thing they normally possess is self-preservation instincts,surely they must see that all this Cummings debacle is turning them into a laughing stock,and yet they keep defending him to the hilt,now if it was a senior cabinet minister they were shielding i could understand their motives,i wouldn't necessarily agree,but i could see why they'd do that,this guy is only an adviser FGS,OK a senior adviser but still only an adviser what defeats me is why he carries so much power in WM and within the Conservative party in particular,it's frightening how an unelected individual holds so much sway.

Dominic Cummings won't bring the government down,but he might well bring the PM down,and some of these interviews with Michael Gove for example are toe-curling in the extreme,when they're caught out telling a mistruth they double down on that statement,they're not stupid they must know they'll be find out,and yet they don't seem to care.

Sorry got carried away there it's this balderdash they keep spinning,anyway to your point around the message being lost,i entirely agree and it's dangerous especially when lockdown measures are gradually being relaxed,there's many words that could describe their approach cavalier is as good as any.

You'd know better than me how TFL is funding their services,a quick Google throws up an article about how Sadiq Khan isn't happy about the terms of the bail-out,what's even more baffling is they supposedly want people to restrict their public transport use,and yet at the same time they've increased the congestion charge fee to £15 a day,and it'll be imposed 7 days a week,where's the joined up thinking behind that policy it's daft.

[Rileybobs]

I'm well aware of that. Let's hope the two options on the table are never, your head or your arm

I thought I’d dumb it right down to a simple metaphor because some people seemed to be struggling to understand that voting in a GE isn’t necessarily being supportive of a particular party. Unlike defending a government for blatantly lying to the public they are supposed to be serving.

[android]

Course its not the full quote cos he spoke for over 30 mins but it is a direct uninterrupted quote not taken out of context.

He said “Only last year I wrote explicitly about the danger of coronaviruses” and the only thing he explicitly wrote about Coronavirus was made up and inserted into his blog last month.

He's blatantly lied and misrepresented himself in a national address where the very essence was a chance for him to give a full and honest account of himself.

If you dont think this is damning and brings into question any of his other claims we are meant to just take at face value then thats your choice but it seems the only people who are holding this kind of view are people who cannot see past the politics of the situation

I defer to Tiger76 who has summed up very well that this is not about the right or the left for the majority of us but about honesty, integrity and what it says to all the ordinary people making countless sacrifices throughout this crisis

I've looked up the relevant quote, which you seem reluctant to use in full. It was a tiny fragment of the 30 minutes - probably a few seconds!

According to the Independent and 2 other sources it was:
"For years, I have warned of the dangers of pandemics. Last year, I wrote about the possible dangers of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning"

In the quest for truth it seems odd that you would miss out a few words that give the quote full context and at the same time add the word "explicitly" which he does not appear to have used.

Anyway you have already answered my question. It was whether you still viewed it as a "blatant lie" given the full context around the article on which the blog was almost entirely based - global pandemics, lots of viruses mentioned including coronavirus etc. I'm sure I have never caused you to change your mind on anything and I'm not going to now. Goodnight.

[Devils_Advocate]

I've looked up the relevant quote, which you seem reluctant to use in full. It was a tiny fragment of the 30 minutes - probably a few seconds!

According to the Independent and 2 other sources it was:
"For years, I have warned of the dangers of pandemics. Last year, I wrote about the possible dangers of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning"

In the quest for truth it seems odd that you would miss out a few words that give the quote full context and at the same time add the word "explicitly" which he does not appear to have used.

Anyway you have already answered my question. It was whether you still viewed it as a "blatant lie" given the full context around the article on which the blog was almost entirely based - global pandemics, lots of viruses mentioned including coronavirus etc. I'm sure I have never caused you to change your mind on anything and I'm not going to now. Goodnight.

The sources I have seen included the word explicitly and worded the part I quoted exactly as I did. If that is wrong then I'll hold my hands up but your quote doesn't change anything.

Not sure why you place such relevance to an article he based his blog on but you have it doing a lot of heavy lifting. He made a claim directly about Coronavirus which was untrue and at the same time edited an old blog to back up his claim.

I dont see why you are making it so complicated except to fabricate a defence for a man who has no disregard for the public but anyhow sounds like we're done and people can make up their own minds

[Paul Waine]

The piece of legislation that DSR was quoting was very specific on its definition of a vulnerable person. DSR was making the same mistake as you and ignoring that very specific definition and trying to apply a general definition where that wasn't correct.

Hi aggi, really, you think that the covid-19 lockdown regulations had stopped children being vulnerable, just because they weren't mentioned in the covid-19 definition about vulnerability? I'm sure you remember that domestic abuse has been mentioned as a "lockdown" issue. Did it exclude children from domestic abuse?

I think there was the word "including" in the lockdown regs. It didn't say and excluding all other vulnerabilities, or anything similar.

[Greenmile]

I've looked up the relevant quote, which you seem reluctant to use in full. It was a tiny fragment of the 30 minutes - probably a few seconds!

According to the Independent and 2 other sources it was:
"For years, I have warned of the dangers of pandemics. Last year, I wrote about the possible dangers of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning"

In the quest for truth it seems odd that you would miss out a few words that give the quote full context and at the same time add the word "explicitly" which he does not appear to have used.

Anyway you have already answered my question. It was whether you still viewed it as a "blatant lie" given the full context around the article on which the blog was almost entirely based - global pandemics, lots of viruses mentioned including coronavirus etc. I'm sure I have never caused you to change your mind on anything and I'm not going to now. Goodnight.

Hmm

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source= ... gws-wiz-hp

Now comes the part where you start talking about “the biased MSM” and their dastardly plot to oust the innocent Cummings because Brexit or something.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I’ve not posted on this since his press conference, I’ve been weighing it up in my head.

I remain of the view that he didn’t break either the law or the spirit of it with the trip to Durham (it was an interpretation of the rules like many of us have made, like when we said it was wrong for Derbyshire Police flying those drones over car parks - we had to stay at home but it wasn’t in every situation, and we would have been daft to follow it slavishly even at risk to welfare).

However, he probably did fall foul if he stopped for fuel while potentially contagious - a Discovery can’t do that many miles easily. That could become an issue to trip him up (if he has left things out of his story it would definitely make it a resigning matter).

The two genuine concerns I have about breaking the spirit of the law, of British fair play if you like, are the first day in London and the trip to Barnard Castle.

In London he ran home then later in the day went back to work despite his wife having serious symptoms and him possibly being asymptomatic and transmissable (saying she had no cough nor fever is a bit disingenuous, there was clearly a huge risk she had Covid).

A round trip to a beauty spot on Easter Sunday after 2 weeks of hell is understandable but is clearly a breach of the rules, it wasn’t for exercise it was to test his driving. Ironically outdoor recreation is now likely to be Ok with minimal transmission risk but this wasn’t clear at the time.

So the press conference made me more concerned, not less, and now the reasons to keep him become harder to justify. There are two - he is critical to the plans to reform the north and the civil service / establishment bubble, and I’m not a fan of witch hunt politics, too many good people lose jobs for minor indiscretions and we are all the worse for it. So I can see why Boris would keep him, but it will be so damaging to his reputation if he does, a no win situation, impossible for me to come down on one side or the other. They have buggered the whole thing up by being too stringent with the lockdown - a huge mistake, looking at Sweden.

[Paul Waine]

This is an interesting read.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52808059


Coming across as more devious by the day.

Thanks for posting, Buxton. Fills in some of the gaps I've been looking for.

[aggi]

Hi aggi, really, you think that the covid-19 lockdown regulations had stopped children being vulnerable, just because they weren't mentioned in the covid-19 definition about vulnerability? I'm sure you remember that domestic abuse has been mentioned as a "lockdown" issue. Did it exclude children from domestic abuse?

I think there was the word "including" in the lockdown regs. It didn't say and excluding all other vulnerabilities, or anything similar.

I think that when a piece of legislation very specifically defines what is meant by vulnerable people then, when you are referring to that legislation, you can't just disregard it because you want to apply a different definition.

Do you really think they meant that it should also apply to children but just forgot to include them? It's not exactly a narrow subset of the population that may be accidentally missed out.

There's another exemption re: a risk of harm which I would guess covers domestic abuse.

[aggi]

Hmm

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source= ... gws-wiz-hp

Now comes the part where you start talking about “the biased MSM” and their dastardly plot to oust the innocent Cummings because Brexit or something.

You should be fair and include the results from the other search

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22last ... e&ie=UTF-8

[IanMcL]

It is good that even the tory rags find him out of order and on borrowed time.

Cummings OUT!

[dsr]

Including dsr unsurprisingly.

Now that's one where I would like to see the link. For the record, please quote where I said that young Cummings definitely suffered from autism, because I certainly don't remember that one.

[Greenmile]

You should be fair and include the results from the other search

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22last ... e&ie=UTF-8

Or I could just cut to the chase and link the actual video clip.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Stoviesplz/s ... 0546000897

Now I hear the word “explicitly” pretty clearly in that clip, but that’s probably just because I’m a lefty liberal remoaner.

I wonder if android will apologise for accusing DA of misquoting Cummings?

[dsr]

Vulnerable person is defined at Section 1c though:

“vulnerable person” includes—
(i)any person aged 70 or older;
(ii)any person under 70 who has an underlying health condition, including but not limited to, the conditions listed in Schedule 1;
(iii)any person who is pregnant.

A child isn't defined as a vulnerable person.

You're confusing two issues.

1 - the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Act provides a definition of what is a vulnerable person for the purposes of the Act. That definition of "vulnerable person" in section 1c specifically says that the definition is "In these regulations".

2. this particular Act makes reference in 6d, the bit about being permitted to leave the house to provide childcare, to the " Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006". This Act was not passed purely for the benefit of coronavirus regulations, and it is not in any way superseded by the coronavirus regulations. It refers to "vulnerable groups" as consisting of children and vulnerable adults.

So certain people, including mentally impaired adults and all children, are still vulnerable in law. For example, you can still not have close dealings with children or mentally impaired adults in a voluntary organisation because children are vulnerable. This coronavirus law has not removed that protection.

[Devils_Advocate]

You should be fair and include the results from the other search

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22last ... e&ie=UTF-8

After Androids post I looked further into it and in his statement I believe the quote Android produced is correct. Im not sure if the quote I used was something Cummings said when answering questions but as I think the difference is not relevant to the point I made id rather just accept being wrong than search for transcripts of the Q&A

What I would say it backs up I wasn't just making up the quote and that it had been quoted by a lot of reputable sources so my intentions were good

In digging a bit deeper again Ive come up with another angle around why Cummings edited his blog when he did. It goes against him editing is blog just to make the false claim but the alternative reason is even more disturbing if true and its still doesn't stop it being fresh in his mind that he edited it to include Coronavirus and therefore his use of it in the statement was still a known lie albeit not quite as pre-meditated

If this rumbles on tomorrow I'll post my new findings but if it goes away I'll let it drop

Edit: Seen Greenmiles link (thanks) and looks like I was right that I correctly quoted him from the Q&A bit. I can see why Android thought what he did looking at the transcript of the main statement but hopefully he will now accept my representation of what Cummings said was accurate

[dsr]

I think that when a piece of legislation very specifically defines what is meant by vulnerable people then, when you are referring to that legislation, you can't just disregard it because you want to apply a different definition.

Do you really think they meant that it should also apply to children but just forgot to include them? It's not exactly a narrow subset of the population that may be accidentally missed out.

There's another exemption re: a risk of harm which I would guess covers domestic abuse.

Just in case there is still confusion. The relevant paragraph that says that arranging childcare is this:

Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

... ... ...

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

and that paragraph of the Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3) says

(3B)Relevant personal care means—

(a)physical assistance, given to a person who is in need of it by reason of age, illness or disability, in connection with—

(i)eating or drinking (including the administration of parenteral nutrition),
(ii)toileting (including in relation to the process of menstruation),
(iii)washing or bathing,
(iv)dressing,
(v)oral care, or
(vi)the care of skin, hair or nails,

(b)the prompting, together with supervision, of a person who is in need of it by reason of age, illness or disability in relation to the performance of any of the activities listed in paragraph (a) where the person is unable to make a decision in relation to performing such an activity without such prompting and supervision, or

(c)any form of training, instruction, advice or guidance which—

(i)relates to the performance of any of the activities listed in paragraph (a),
(ii)is given to a person who is in need of it by reason of age, illness or disability, and
(iii)does not fall within paragraph (b).

I do not believe that portion of the Act was intended to say that you may leave the house to support a 70 year person but you may not leave the house to support a 69 year old person. IMO you can leave the house to support anyone who is a vulnerable person under the 2006 Act.

[tiger76]

This is yet another story the government could do without,important to stress the MP wasn't there at the time,but the drip drip effect won't help the government at this juncture. https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus ... e-11995333

[Paul Waine]

Paul, like DA (we’re not the same person remember) I would also like to know your thoughts on why Dominic Cummings lies during his statement. He had no reason to mention anything to do with his blog during his statement as it was not pertinent to his situation, yet he volunteered that he had written about coronavirus in 2019 - which with the actual irrefutable evidence from the wayback machine has been proven to be a lie?

What are your thoughts on it?

Hi Zlatan, I think you and I both posted at the same time (10:01), my post was a "thanks" for your full fact link. Maybe my post did answer your question, or maybe it hasn't quite. I guess you may have also seen my fuller response to DA - yes, I do know that you are two very different people (why is it that some on this site think it's that two different posters may be the same person)? - I'll copy/paste a little of that post here. Again, maybe it has and maybe it hasn't answered your question.

Quoting from my post to DA:
"I'm happy to agree that coronavirus wasn't in the original. DC quotes the anthrax example from the GAO report - I assume that was in the original and then later inserts "The report describes yet another well-publicized incident in China...." If we hadn't got a coronavirus crisis on-going now - and it originated in China - I can see why this second example wouldn't have been mentioned in the original 2019 blog.

"Did DC say he wrote about "coronavirus" in 2019, or did he say he wrote about pandemics? It's a pity one of the journos wasn't able to ask "when was that?" Or, "which blog was that?" I'm not even sure the blog we are looking at is about pandemics, the subject is bio-security of BSL3/4 labs.

"However, my memory (I could be wrong) is that DC was responding to the a lot of the previous comments about him and seeking to offer something that shows that "he is a guy that cares about people...." I didn't get the impression that these were part of his prepared remarks. So, also don't make a link between his blog, including his coronavirus edit and his very unusual press conference yesterday afternoon."

I've now seen Faisal Islam's BBC article re DC - why is this listed on the BBC Business section? - Islam writes "So for the PM's chief adviser to claim, in the middle of his defence, "only last year I wrote explicitly about the danger of coronaviruses" is worthy of some inspection. Such prescience would indeed have been impressive and helpful...."

If this was a court case, I'd get a transcript of DC's presser --- and identify exactly what DC said and where in the presentation he used those words. As above, I don't recall them being said in his prepared comments. My recollection (I may be wrong...) is that they were in response to the questions and often a response to a question is in part a reflection of the question that was asked. I feel that DC quoted his blog, as I think I've already posted earlier on this thread, to show that he is "a guy that cares...." and that some of the comments about him are inaccurate and misunderstand him. Yes, I also feel he mis-quoted his own blog - it's not really about coronavirus, it's about the security of bio-labs that had been given permission to work with live viruses.

Why do I think we are all having this discussion? I have a sense that there is a situation in Cummings family that he and the rest of his family would prefer to keep personal and private. I think that's the explanation for some of the "difficult" answers - and the explanation for a journey to Durham and everything else around it.

[Greenmile]

“You there! Why are you breaking the law?”

“Well officer, I have a very good reason, but I’d rather keep it personal and private”

“Fair enough. Sorry to have bothered you.”

[ksrclaret]

Hi Zlatan, I think you and I both posted at the same time (10:01), my post was a "thanks" for your full fact link. Maybe my post did answer your question, or maybe it hasn't quite. I guess you may have also seen my fuller response to DA - yes, I do know that you are two very different people (why is it that some on this site think it's that two different posters may be the same person)? - I'll copy/paste a little of that post here. Again, maybe it has and maybe it hasn't answered your question.

Quoting from my post to DA:
"I'm happy to agree that coronavirus wasn't in the original. DC quotes the anthrax example from the GAO report - I assume that was in the original and then later inserts "The report describes yet another well-publicized incident in China...." If we hadn't got a coronavirus crisis on-going now - and it originated in China - I can see why this second example wouldn't have been mentioned in the original 2019 blog.

"Did DC say he wrote about "coronavirus" in 2019, or did he say he wrote about pandemics? It's a pity one of the journos wasn't able to ask "when was that?" Or, "which blog was that?" I'm not even sure the blog we are looking at is about pandemics, the subject is bio-security of BSL3/4 labs.

"However, my memory (I could be wrong) is that DC was responding to the a lot of the previous comments about him and seeking to offer something that shows that "he is a guy that cares about people...." I didn't get the impression that these were part of his prepared remarks. So, also don't make a link between his blog, including his coronavirus edit and his very unusual press conference yesterday afternoon."

I've now seen Faisal Islam's BBC article re DC - why is this listed on the BBC Business section? - Islam writes "So for the PM's chief adviser to claim, in the middle of his defence, "only last year I wrote explicitly about the danger of coronaviruses" is worthy of some inspection. Such prescience would indeed have been impressive and helpful...."

If this was a court case, I'd get a transcript of DC's presser --- and identify exactly what DC said and where in the presentation he used those words. As above, I don't recall them being said in his prepared comments. My recollection (I may be wrong...) is that they were in response to the questions and often a response to a question is in part a reflection of the question that was asked. I feel that DC quoted his blog, as I think I've already posted earlier on this thread, to show that he is "a guy that cares...." and that some of the comments about him are inaccurate and misunderstand him. Yes, I also feel he mis-quoted his own blog - it's not really about coronavirus, it's about the security of bio-labs that had been given permission to work with live viruses.

Why do I think we are all having this discussion? I have a sense that there is a situation in Cummings family that he and the rest of his family would prefer to keep personal and private. I think that's the explanation for some of the "difficult" answers - and the explanation for a journey to Durham and everything else around it.

Mis-quoted his own blog to the extent he went to the trouble of adding something in about predicting a coronavirus pandemic last month and then telling everyone he actually did predict it. Brilliant. Michael Gove's toes would curl at that one.