Dominic Cummings

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 12:50 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:39 pm
and no...



So they deemed that he did not break the (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 but they wont comment on the Government Guidance to stay at home (which states that if you are suffering with Covid-19 symptoms you should STAY AT HOME) - that's the ambiguity that has been exploited, and you have to be a little dense to not realise that.
Christ, how many straws are you hanging onto

They deal with the LAW they say its LAWFUL that's the discussion point that his trip was lawful.

Not abiding by the government guidance is NOT against the law, so the police don't deal with it.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by aggi » Fri May 29, 2020 12:52 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:14 pm
https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-e ... ent--.aspx

Is it covered in paragraph 2?
Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:23 pm


You must be reading something different than others
Here's the official version
https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-events/Pages/News Articles/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement--.aspx
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.

As I said, that statement was very careful not to mention the travelling from London to Durham, it only references locating himself at and doesn't offer an opinion on travelling there.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 12:58 pm

aggi wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:52 pm
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.

As I said, that statement was very careful not to mention the travelling from London to Durham, it only references locating himself at and doesn't offer an opinion on travelling there.
Really? You don't realise that the sentence which includes..... By locating himself at his father's premises....... Covers how he located to that address? Time travel? Magic?...... Or, the evidence they had in front of them, that he drove there!!!

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5231
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Fri May 29, 2020 1:04 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:58 pm
Really? You don't realise that the sentence which includes..... By locating himself at his father's premises....... Covers how he located to that address? Time travel? Magic?...... Or, the evidence they had in front of them, that he drove there!!!
We’re making such good progress with new initiatives due to Covid-19, it now appears teleportation is one of them :D

As I wrote at the time, nothing wrong with his trip to Durham, I’d have done the same in his shoes, the Bernard Castle one is another story. I wouldn’t have done that.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Fri May 29, 2020 1:06 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:50 pm
Christ, how many straws are you hanging onto

They deal with the LAW they say its LAWFUL that's the discussion point that his trip was lawful.

Not abiding by the government guidance is NOT against the law, so the police don't deal with it.
Thanks for that.

So the “STAY AT HOME” guidance message is not a law, so the past 3 months we have all been staying at home by following guidance then with no fear of breaking the law?That suggests we can all do what the f#ck we like because there is no law saying we can’t? No, that’s not ambiguous at all is it.

EVERYBODY OUT - it’s OK we’re not breaking the law if we go out, it’s only guidance, not a law, out we go...

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri May 29, 2020 1:07 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:33 pm
I have directly refuted your argument
Which argument- that he never said he was testing his eyesight? That he should be treated in the same way as other people, especially the MPs that have “misinterpreted” the regulations?

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri May 29, 2020 1:16 pm

aggi wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:52 pm
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.

As I said, that statement was very careful not to mention the travelling from London to Durham, it only references locating himself at and doesn't offer an opinion on travelling there.
How ridiculous- you have Martin-p DA and Zlatan arguing that it was implied in Cummings statement that he was testing his eyes and you cannot have a literal interpretation. You are now arguing that by using the words “locating himself” they weren’t commenting on how he got there.

You are right they have not used the word “drove to” but as DA would ask are you “saying that someone has to explicitly state something in direct language or it cannot be concluded by the use of common language interpretation”

You do have a point to argue though

summitclaret
Posts: 3891
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 826 times
Has Liked: 1307 times
Location: burnley

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by summitclaret » Fri May 29, 2020 1:17 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:06 pm
Thanks for that.

So the “STAY AT HOME” guidance message is not a law, so the past 3 months we have all been staying at home by following guidance then with no fear of breaking the law?That suggests we can all do what the f#ck we like because there is no law saying we can’t? No, that’s not ambiguous at all is it.

EVERYBODY OUT - it’s OK we’re not breaking the law if we go out, it’s only guidance, not a law, out we go...
I don't think I have ever seen a more irresponsible post that on this board.
This user liked this post: Zlatan

Silkyskills1
Posts: 5841
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:39 pm
Been Liked: 1678 times
Has Liked: 2513 times
Location: Rawtenstall

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Silkyskills1 » Fri May 29, 2020 1:19 pm

Hang on, I bet you have.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 1:19 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:06 pm
Thanks for that.

So the “STAY AT HOME” guidance message is not a law, so the past 3 months we have all been staying at home by following guidance then with no fear of breaking the law?That suggests we can all do what the f#ck we like because there is no law saying we can’t? No, that’s not ambiguous at all is it.

EVERYBODY OUT - it’s OK we’re not breaking the law if we go out, it’s only guidance, not a law, out we go...
Please tell me you're joking

You don't see the difference between guidance, and the actual law?

In any case, my point which you're arguing against, was that the trip was lawful. The police say its lawful, so in all honesty I don't give a flying fig what you think.

summitclaret
Posts: 3891
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 826 times
Has Liked: 1307 times
Location: burnley

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by summitclaret » Fri May 29, 2020 1:19 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:16 pm
How ridiculous- you have Martin-p DA and Zlatan arguing that it was implied in Cummings statement that he was testing his eyes and you cannot have a literal interpretation. You are now arguing that by using the words “locating himself” they weren’t commenting on how he got there.

You are right they have not used the word “drove to” but as DA would ask are you “saying that someone has to explicitly state something in direct language or it cannot be concluded by the use of common language interpretation”

You do have a point to argue though
Maybe they want the Met to contradict Durham Police.

summitclaret
Posts: 3891
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 826 times
Has Liked: 1307 times
Location: burnley

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by summitclaret » Fri May 29, 2020 1:21 pm

Silkyskills1 wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:19 pm
Hang on, I bet you have.
He is inciting people to transmit a deadly disease. I don't for a minute think he intended to, but he is with his last para.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Fri May 29, 2020 1:27 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:19 pm
Please tell me you're joking

You don't see the difference between guidance, and the actual law?

In any case, my point which you're arguing against, was that the trip was lawful. The police say its lawful, so in all honesty I don't give a flying fig what you think.
Humour me.

What would happen if I was ill with Covid-19 and I left the house with the intention of visiting my parents so that I could get them to look after my autistic child, and the police stopped me on the journey?

Please tell me what laws I have broken? And if I have not broken any laws, why would the police stop me?

(Just so you know, we have had police road blocks in our area stopping access to the motorway when there was the “STAY AT HOME” guidance)

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Fri May 29, 2020 1:30 pm

summitclaret wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:21 pm
He is inciting people to transmit a deadly disease. I don't for a minute think he intended to, but he is with his last para.
It’s called sarcasm, you may have heard of it

And there’s no law against it is there...?

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 1:31 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:06 pm
Thanks for that.

So the “STAY AT HOME” guidance message is not a law, so the past 3 months we have all been staying at home by following guidance then with no fear of breaking the law?That suggests we can all do what the f#ck we like because there is no law saying we can’t? No, that’s not ambiguous at all is it.

EVERYBODY OUT - it’s OK we’re not breaking the law if we go out, it’s only guidance, not a law, out we go...
Just in case you weren't joking, a simple example

A shop has guidance on its window on what shoppers can or cannot do. One of the list is don't steal anything.

If someone does steal, the police will prosecute them under the theft act, not for breaking the guidance on the front door.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Fri May 29, 2020 1:32 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:31 pm
Just in case you weren't joking, a simple example

A shop has guidance on its window on what shoppers can or cannot do. One of the list is don't steal anything.

If someone does steal, the police will prosecute them under the theft act, not for breaking the guidance on the front door.
Ok so tell me what law I would break if I hadn’t stayed at home?

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 1:33 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:27 pm
Humour me.

What would happen if I was ill with Covid-19 and I left the house with the intention of visiting my parents so that I could get them to look after my autistic child, and the police stopped me on the journey?

Please tell me what laws I have broken? And if I have not broken any laws, why would the police stop me?

(Just so you know, we have had police road blocks in our area stopping access to the motorway when there was the “STAY AT HOME” guidance)
Depends what the health protection regs 2020 say about it.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri May 29, 2020 1:39 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:16 pm
How ridiculous- you have Martin-p DA and Zlatan arguing that it was implied in Cummings statement that he was testing his eyes and you cannot have a literal interpretation. You are now arguing that by using the words “locating himself” they weren’t commenting on how he got there.

You are right they have not used the word “drove to” but as DA would ask are you “saying that someone has to explicitly state something in direct language or it cannot be concluded by the use of common language interpretation”

You do have a point to argue though
Wait a second, me Martin, Zlatan and aggi are different people so can have different opinions. It is you who is arguing for a literal interpretation in your discussion with me, Martin and Zlatan and seem to be arguing against a literal interpretation with aggi.

Make up your mind, do you agree with me, Martin and Zlatan or do you agree with aggi because you cant do both and expect to be taken seriously?

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 1:47 pm

The highway code is guidence... Nobody can be prosecuted for breaking the highway code, however the guidence within the code are covered by law
So the code says you should abide by the speed limit
If you break that, you get prosecuted under the road traffic act, not for breaking the guidance of the highway code
Same applies to the Covid guidence

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by aggi » Fri May 29, 2020 1:48 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:58 pm
Really? You don't realise that the sentence which includes..... By locating himself at his father's premises....... Covers how he located to that address? Time travel? Magic?...... Or, the evidence they had in front of them, that he drove there!!!
Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:16 pm

How ridiculous- you have Martin-p DA and Zlatan arguing that it was implied in Cummings statement that he was testing his eyes and you cannot have a literal interpretation. You are now arguing that by using the words “locating himself” they weren’t commenting on how he got there.

You are right they have not used the word “drove to” but as DA would ask are you “saying that someone has to explicitly state something in direct language or it cannot be concluded by the use of common language interpretation”

You do have a point to argue though
I wouldn't say that locating himself covers how he located to that address. Being somewhere and getting there are two different issues.

In my opinion that slightly clumsy wording reads very much like a lawyer prepared statement and hence the lack of reference to the journey seems intentional.

I understand that others may have a different view but I'd still say that there isn't a definitive judgement either way on whether the journey was OK or not.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Fri May 29, 2020 1:49 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:30 pm
It’s called sarcasm, you may have heard of it

And there’s no law against it is there...?
Sarcasm's lost on here along with a sense of humour.

I got the irony in your post clearly it was too subtle for some.

summitclaret
Posts: 3891
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 826 times
Has Liked: 1307 times
Location: burnley

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by summitclaret » Fri May 29, 2020 1:50 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:30 pm
It’s called sarcasm, you may have heard of it

And there’s no law against it is there...?
Civis 19 is way too serious for joking.
Last edited by summitclaret on Fri May 29, 2020 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Fri May 29, 2020 1:53 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:39 pm
Wait a second, me Martin, Zlatan and aggi are different people so can have different opinions. It is you who is arguing for a literal interpretation in your discussion with me, Martin and Zlatan and seem to be arguing against a literal interpretation with aggi.

Make up your mind, do you agree with me, Martin and Zlatan or do you agree with aggi because you cant do both and expect to be taken seriously?
You still take this poster seriously DA :shock: i'm glad their not my attorney.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Fri May 29, 2020 1:55 pm

summitclaret wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:50 pm
Civis 19 is way to serious for joking.
Indeed, it’s also too serious for any of us to ignore guidance and laws - but it’s Ok for Dominic Cummings - he’s got friends in high places you know...

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 1:55 pm

aggi wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:48 pm
I wouldn't say that locating himself covers how he located to that address. Being somewhere and getting there are two different issues.

In my opinion that slightly clumsy wording reads very much like a lawyer prepared statement and hence the lack of reference to the journey seems intentional.

I understand that others may have a different view but I'd still say that there isn't a definitive judgement either way on whether the journey was OK or not.
Read your first sentence again, perhaps you'll laugh as much as I did

What you seem to be forgetting, is the police know exactly how he got there, either his official press statement, or his live explanation in front of millions on tv explains it fully... Or have you been on Mars for the last week.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by martin_p » Fri May 29, 2020 1:57 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:31 pm
Just in case you weren't joking, a simple example

A shop has guidance on its window on what shoppers can or cannot do. One of the list is don't steal anything.

If someone does steal, the police will prosecute them under the theft act, not for breaking the guidance on the front door.
So if a shop doesn’t have a sign on the door it’s an open house then? The answer is no, because not stealing is actually a law. Not sure what point you were trying to make but it’s an awful analogy.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri May 29, 2020 1:57 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:39 pm
Wait a second, me Martin, Zlatan and aggi are different people so can have different opinions. It is you who is arguing for a literal interpretation in your discussion with me, Martin and Zlatan and seem to be arguing against a literal interpretation with aggi.

Make up your mind, do you agree with me, Martin and Zlatan or do you agree with aggi because you cant do both and expect to be taken seriously?
You can have different opinions but also you may have the same opinion, which you do on the Cummings issue. I was putting your argument to Aggie, DA would ask, and then I quoted what you had written, I wasn’t arguing against him I just pointed out he had a position to argue from.

You’ve read the Durham statement, do you agree that implied in the phrase “locating himself” that included his drive from London or do you agree with Aggie that as there was no specific mention of the mode of travel that question hasn’t been determined?

Some things are more implied than others which is one reason there are differences of opinion when it comes to implied terms of a contract.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri May 29, 2020 2:02 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:53 pm
You still take this poster seriously DA :shock: i'm glad their not my attorney.
What didn’t you understand? I can try and simplify it for you.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri May 29, 2020 2:05 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:53 pm
You still take this poster seriously DA :shock: i'm glad their not my attorney.
Do i heck he's a right crank. I know I shouldn't indulge but I haven't time to follow anything serious so far today as working so just killing odd bits of time.

Once I finish work later I'll leave him alone and apologies if im giving people a headache having to read his rubbish cos I know how annoying it can be to watch people feed the troll :evil:

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 2:07 pm

martin_p wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:57 pm
So if a shop doesn’t have a sign on the door it’s an open house then? The answer is no, because not stealing is actually a law. Not sure what point you were trying to make but it’s an awful analogy.
Not the best ill give you

But your reply is worse..... I was talking about one hypothetical shop just to simplify things for those struggling, perhaps my later one about the highway code will be more to your satisfaction

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri May 29, 2020 2:09 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:57 pm
You can have different opinions but also you may have the same opinion, which you do on the Cummings issue. I was putting your argument to Aggie, DA would ask, and then I quoted what you had written, I wasn’t arguing against him I just pointed out he had a position to argue from.

You’ve read the Durham statement, do you agree that implied in the phrase “locating himself” that included his drive from London or do you agree with Aggie that as there was no specific mention of the mode of travel that question hasn’t been determined?

Some things are more implied than others which is one reason there are differences of opinion when it comes to implied terms of a contract.
You highlighted a certain paragraph in the Durham statement to prove they said he hadn't broke the law. aggi disagreed with you.

Now you answer my question which i asked first on whether you agree with aggi or whether you agree with me or whether you think you can manage to square the third option that you don't agree with either of us?

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by android » Fri May 29, 2020 2:20 pm

aggi wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:48 pm
I wouldn't say that locating himself covers how he located to that address. Being somewhere and getting there are two different issues.

In my opinion that slightly clumsy wording reads very much like a lawyer prepared statement and hence the lack of reference to the journey seems intentional.

I understand that others may have a different view but I'd still say that there isn't a definitive judgement either way on whether the journey was OK or not.
I think you should concede this one aggi. In reference to home locating in Durham, the police specifically referred to just Section 6 of the regulations, which entirely relates to not leaving where you are living (he lives in London) without a reasonable excuse. The police are stating that he had a reasonable excuse (presumably care of a vulnerable person being his 4 year old) to leave his home in London and "locate" himself in Durham. In this paragraph they are not referring at all to compliance with the rules whilst he was in Durham. It is all about his relocation to Durham.

In fact, it means that Cummings doesn't even have to rely on the caveat in the Stay Home guidance, allowing people to not necessarily follow the rules if they had to depart from them to care for a child. He doesn't need that because the police say he didn't break the law in the first place.

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by android » Fri May 29, 2020 2:21 pm

Line 1 "him" locating not "home locating

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Fri May 29, 2020 2:24 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:02 pm
What didn’t you understand? I can try and simplify it for you.
You're all arguing over semantics,it doesn't matter why Dominic Cummings was driving to Barnard Castle,he shouldn't have been making the journey at all,if we all looked for loopholes in the guidance i'm certain we could have found them,however very few people did because they are responsible citizens who understood that for this infection to kept under control they had to forgo their normal freedoms for a temporary period.

Clearly many of the political class think they are above such mere guidance ,and they know better than anybody else what's best for the country.

Just remember this when the government instructs you to follow their instructions to the letter and you disagree with them,as it's only guidance and not laws then feel free to ignore the said guidance even if it's irresponsible and could put your fellow citizens in danger.

Imagine if everybody acted as Dominic Cummings,Stephen Kinnock and others choose to,the lockdown would be totally ineffective.

Thankfully the vast majority are not as cavalier as some of our supposed betters and they choose to engage in self-sacrifice to aid the NHS in it's efforts to fight this deadly virus.

Maybe if we'd had a proper lockdown from the start then we wouldn't be arguing over minor loopholes,but like everything else in this crisis our government took a half-hearted approach.

And the end result is we've got the 2nd highest death toll in the world.

That's why millions of people are rightly indignant.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by dsr » Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:27 pm
Humour me.

What would happen if I was ill with Covid-19 and I left the house with the intention of visiting my parents so that I could get them to look after my autistic child, and the police stopped me on the journey?

Please tell me what laws I have broken? And if I have not broken any laws, why would the police stop me?

(Just so you know, we have had police road blocks in our area stopping access to the motorway when there was the “STAY AT HOME” guidance)
The police, if they stopped you, would be to check whether you were breaking the law or not. When they found that you had left the house to arrange childcare, they would let you carry on.

They would be highly unlikely to stop you anyway because millions of children have carte blanche to travel the country to visit absentee parents, and they can't tell by looking at you whether or not you are separated from your wife. I doubt it is worth the hassle of stopping a hundred children of broken homes on the offchance of catching one child visiting grandmother.

The point of the STAY AT HOME guidance was not that it meant you must not stay home at all. If stopping at home would put the child in such danger that it might die, then even you - stickler for rules tat you are - would leave the house. If the danger was such that the child might be harmed but probably not fatally, then you would leave the house. The only difference is the degree of danger at which the tipping point is reached. You are much more sanguine than Cummings, perhaps, about the health of your child.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 2:27 pm

android wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:20 pm
I think you should concede this one aggi. In reference to home locating in Durham, the police specifically referred to just Section 6 of the regulations, which entirely relates to not leaving where you are living (he lives in London) without a reasonable excuse. The police are stating that he had a reasonable excuse (presumably care of a vulnerable person being his 4 year old) to leave his home in London and "locate" himself in Durham. In this paragraph they are not referring at all to compliance with the rules whilst he was in Durham. It is all about his relocation to Durham.

In fact, it means that Cummings doesn't even have to rely on the caveat in the Stay Home guidance, allowing people to not necessarily follow the rules if they had to depart from them to care for a child. He doesn't need that because the police say he didn't break the law in the first place.
Just wait for the.... Cummings has something on the chief constable.... Posts. :lol:

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Fri May 29, 2020 2:30 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:27 pm
Just wait for the.... Cummings has something on the chief constable.... Posts. :lol:
Don't start the conspiracy theorists off Grumps for goodness sake :)

Glad to see you've not lost your sense of humour.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by martin_p » Fri May 29, 2020 2:46 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 pm
The police, if they stopped you, would be to check whether you were breaking the law or not. When they found that you had left the house to arrange childcare, they would let you carry on.

They would be highly unlikely to stop you anyway because millions of children have carte blanche to travel the country to visit absentee parents, and they can't tell by looking at you whether or not you are separated from your wife. I doubt it is worth the hassle of stopping a hundred children of broken homes on the offchance of catching one child visiting grandmother.

The point of the STAY AT HOME guidance was not that it meant you must not stay home at all. If stopping at home would put the child in such danger that it might die, then even you - stickler for rules tat you are - would leave the house. If the danger was such that the child might be harmed but probably not fatally, then you would leave the house. The only difference is the degree of danger at which the tipping point is reached. You are much more sanguine than Cummings, perhaps, about the health of your child.
Dominic Cummings, a man so worried about his child’s safety he put him in his car for a 25 mile trip when he wasn’t sure he was safe to drive.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Fri May 29, 2020 2:52 pm

This still droning on?

At this rate it will be a 30 pager and barely anyone will change their opinion.

I think it's time to move onto the next targets that the media are lining up, Whitty and Vallance, for not wanting to chat about DC.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Fri May 29, 2020 2:56 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 1:33 pm
Depends what the health protection regs 2020 say about it.
Just reviewed it.

It appears that it is an offence to disobey the stay at home "guidance. I could find no caveat for relocation to provide care for a child. feel free to find it and show me.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 3:00 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:56 pm
Just reviewed it.

It appears that it is an offence to disobey the stay at home "guidance. I could find no caveat for relocation to provide care for a child. feel free to find it and show me.
Why? Iam not interested, it was you asking.
The police say its lawful, that's it for me.

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Greenmile » Fri May 29, 2020 3:11 pm

dsr wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 pm
The police, if they stopped you, would be to check whether you were breaking the law or not. When they found that you had left the house to arrange childcare, they would let you carry on.

They would be highly unlikely to stop you anyway because millions of children have carte blanche to travel the country to visit absentee parents, and they can't tell by looking at you whether or not you are separated from your wife. I doubt it is worth the hassle of stopping a hundred children of broken homes on the offchance of catching one child visiting grandmother.

The point of the STAY AT HOME guidance was not that it meant you must not stay home at all. If stopping at home would put the child in such danger that it might die, then even you - stickler for rules tat you are - would leave the house. If the danger was such that the child might be harmed but probably not fatally, then you would leave the house. The only difference is the degree of danger at which the tipping point is reached. You are much more sanguine than Cummings, perhaps, about the health of your child.
And there we have it.

The folk who followed the letter and spirit of the guidelines designed to protect the country from the spread of a potentially fatal virus just don’t care enough about their families’ wellbeing.

If you can’t see how that’s hugely offensive to all those people who (eg) were unable to visit dying relatives or attend funerals, the there’s absolutely no hope for you. Defending the Tories is more important to you than showing any shred of humanity.
This user liked this post: tiger76

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Greenmile » Fri May 29, 2020 3:14 pm

Grumps wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 3:00 pm
Why? Iam not interested, it was you asking.
The police say its lawful, that's it for me.
Does the Durham police force have any jurisdiction over a journey that started in London? This is a genuine question - I’m not trying to catch you out.

Maybe that’s why they used the slightly strange term “locating..at”, rather than “relocating...to” which is how a normal person would put it (imo).

Presumably any offence would have occurred at the start of the journey, rather than the destination.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri May 29, 2020 3:17 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:09 pm
You highlighted a certain paragraph in the Durham statement to prove they said he hadn't broke the law. aggi disagreed with you.

Now you answer my question which i asked first on whether you agree with aggi or whether you agree with me or whether you think you can manage to square the third option that you don't agree with either of us?
Is it simple punctuation you have difficulty with?

Is it covered in paragraph 2? (Question mark)

Somehow, and I’m looking forward to you explanation, you interpret this as highlighting a paragraph to prove they said he hadn’t broken the law!

I then pointed out to you that I had been putting your argument to Aggie, not mine. You’ve now gone full Ringo with schoolyard - you answer my question first.

There isn’t a right answer, it’s not an either/or which is why I used an analogy of implied terms in a contract (in hindsight probably too much for you). You would also have to give some consideration to objective and subjective and common practice. It was your Rather contrived statement about using “common language interpretation” rather than what is explicitly written, to justify your position that he was driving to test his eyesight.

Aggie position is that using the phrase “locating himself” does not allow for any implication that it included the journey and was intentionally used so that “common language interpretation” doesn’t apply. (That’s my understanding I may be mistaken).

Given your position you would interpret the Durham statement as including the journey because how can you locate yourself somewhere without travelling? It’s implied and doesn’t need to be explicitly written.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri May 29, 2020 3:26 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:24 pm
You're all arguing over semantics,it doesn't matter why Dominic Cummings was driving to Barnard Castle,he shouldn't have been making the journey at all,if we all looked for loopholes in the guidance i'm certain we could have found them,however very few people did because they are responsible citizens who understood that for this infection to kept under control they had to forgo their normal freedoms for a temporary period.

Clearly many of the political class think they are above such mere guidance ,and they know better than anybody else what's best for the country.

Just remember this when the government instructs you to follow their instructions to the letter and you disagree with them,as it's only guidance and not laws then feel free to ignore the said guidance even if it's irresponsible and could put your fellow citizens in danger.

Imagine if everybody acted as Dominic Cummings,Stephen Kinnock and others choose to,the lockdown would be totally ineffective.

Thankfully the vast majority are not as cavalier as some of our supposed betters and they choose to engage in self-sacrifice to aid the NHS in it's efforts to fight this deadly virus.

Maybe if we'd had a proper lockdown from the start then we wouldn't be arguing over minor loopholes,but like everything else in this crisis our government took a half-hearted approach.

And the end result is we've got the 2nd highest death toll in the world.

That's why millions of people are rightly indignant.
I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said. I’ve not defended Cummings per se, I’ve pointed out why he might, subjectively, have decided to do it. Durham police have come to the same conclusion.

My argument (mainly) has been for him to be treated in a way consistent with other people (especially MPs) and proportionally. I’ve also highlighted where people have deliberately interpreted what he has said to suit their position even when that is not what has been said hence the semantics and punctuation!!

I suspect there are some on here who will try to argue that you can imply something from Cummings statement but cannot imply anything from the police statement

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 3:27 pm

Greenmile wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 3:14 pm
Does the Durham police force have any jurisdiction over a journey that started in London? This is a genuine question - I’m not trying to catch you out.

Maybe that’s why they used the slightly strange term “locating..at”, rather than “relocating...to” which is how a normal person would put it (imo).

Presumably any offence would have occurred at the start of the journey, rather than the destination.
They were asked to look into the whole incident

If it was an offence, it would have been a continuing offence, some would say the further from home you got, the more serious it would have been.

I just cannot believe the people on here, who try to portray their intelligence to us all on a daily, if not hourly basis, cannot get their head around a simple statement. He located to Durham... He drove to Durham.... He got in his car, put it in 1st gear, checked behind him... Pulled out, changed into 2nd gear.......... It all means the same

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Burnley Ace » Fri May 29, 2020 3:29 pm

Greenmile wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 3:14 pm
Presumably any offence would have occurred at the start of the journey, rather than the destination.
Would it not be an ongoing offence?

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Fri May 29, 2020 3:40 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 3:29 pm
Would it not be an ongoing offence?
Yep, I called it a continuing offence, same thing though.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Fri May 29, 2020 3:49 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 3:17 pm
Is it simple punctuation you have difficulty with?

Is it covered in paragraph 2? (Question mark)

Somehow, and I’m looking forward to you explanation, you interpret this as highlighting a paragraph to prove they said he hadn’t broken the law!

I then pointed out to you that I had been putting your argument to Aggie, not mine. You’ve now gone full Ringo with schoolyard - you answer my question first.

There isn’t a right answer, it’s not an either/or which is why I used an analogy of implied terms in a contract (in hindsight probably too much for you). You would also have to give some consideration to objective and subjective and common practice. It was your Rather contrived statement about using “common language interpretation” rather than what is explicitly written, to justify your position that he was driving to test his eyesight.

Aggie position is that using the phrase “locating himself” does not allow for any implication that it included the journey and was intentionally used so that “common language interpretation” doesn’t apply. (That’s my understanding I may be mistaken).

Given your position you would interpret the Durham statement as including the journey because how can you locate yourself somewhere without travelling? It’s implied and doesn’t need to be explicitly written.
I think the Durham police statement is open to interpretation as is Cummings statement.

I think Durham Police intended it to be seen to cover the who leaving London, travelling to Durham and locating there but have been careful not to over commit to a position that they did not want to have to defend

I think Cummings intended for his statement to suggest that his problems with his vision was one of the reasons he needed to complete a test drive. I also think his statement has been carefully worded (by a lawyer no doubt) so that he is not committed to a definite position he later has to defend

Is whether Cummings broke the law or not by driving an issue for me - not at all
Is whether the reason for Cummings taking a test drive to Barnard Castle to test is eye sight important to me - not at all

There is a list of other stuff why I think Cummings should resign or be sacked and ultimately in the realms of normal debate it is this stuff that is putting the govt under a lot of pressure and scrutiny

In the meantime all that these stupid meaningless arguments across social media do is keep the story bubbling along, keep it on the political press agenda and stop it from just disappearing as the govt wish.

It amuses me that there's a lot of people who will argue and argue to death to defend Cummings and then moan that its time to move on. Well I dont think it is time to move on and its people like you who are helping me the most so thanks.

There you go I given you a pretty clear and comprehensive view on the matter. Im finishing work soon so I'll let you continue your arguing with someone else but please don't give up the fight cos you're doing a grand job of helping keep this topic relevant

Edit: Just to add my problem is not with Cummings at all anymore. I thought the whole lining the press up to question him was not right and it should have been our PM giving a full account of Cummings story and taking questions.

My issue is with Johnson and following Wednesdays performance in his liaison committee I now think we would be better off with him gone even with all the upheaval it will cause in the middle of a health crisis
Last edited by Devils_Advocate on Fri May 29, 2020 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Fri May 29, 2020 3:53 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 3:26 pm
I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said. I’ve not defended Cummings per se, I’ve pointed out why he might, subjectively, have decided to do it. Durham police have come to the same conclusion.

My argument (mainly) has been for him to be treated in a way consistent with other people (especially MPs) and proportionally. I’ve also highlighted where people have deliberately interpreted what he has said to suit their position even when that is not what has been said hence the semantics and punctuation!!

I suspect there are some on here who will try to argue that you can imply something from Cummings statement but cannot imply anything from the police statement
I don't think a reasonable person would disagree about Cummings trip to Durham,there's grey lines but he's certainly got a valid argument that is was for childcare reasons.

Where he might have made a minor misjudgement and seemingly the police came to this viewpoint is in the BC journey.

Now if he'd have come out and addressed these points and admitted his errors earlier then the subsequent media storm might not have ensued,the guy's only human like the rest of us he isn't immune to mistakes.

What appears to have riled up the public on all the political divides is his apparent lack of contrition.

It's amazing how far a simple apology will go to absolve yourself of blame.

And the way the cabinet attempted to defend him turned into a comedy show of it's own hence why some of their personal ratings slumped badly.

I''m more concerned about the negative effect it may have on the next phase of this test & trace strategy,that's my fear that public trust in the government is completely undermined and they don't participate in the scheme,because the scheme will ultimately only work if the public buy into it.

To summarise has Dominic Cummings done anything illegal no he hasn't.

Were his actions advisable for a senior government adviser in hindsight probably not,but in hindsight we'd all make different calls.

It's totally up to the PM if he wishes to dispense with Mr Cummings services or not,but he needs to be aware that he might lose support if he chooses to retain him,that's a political calculation he'll have to make.

And it appears he's willing to take the short-term hit to his polling numbers to keep Mr Cummings in post.

The dilemma for Labour is how long do they keep this story running.

If it wasn't so serious it'd be a great soap opera.
This user liked this post: Zlatan

Locked