Poll - did Cummings break the rules ?

[PoshinDevon]

But the Scottish Health Minister resigned because:

“She said she had done so after speaking again to the first minister, and had agreed with her that the ’justifiable focus’ on her actions risked distracting from the pandemic response.”

Bet she doesn’t give up her seat which if you are that noble you would as how can you represent your constituents when ......

My apologies. She was not a Minister she was the Chief Medical Officer - a non-elected official.

FROM THE DAILY TELEGRAPH 25 May 2920

.....,,.. This can’t be one rule for Labour politicians, and another rule for everyone else.

But it can be one rule for Conservative non-elected “Special Advisers” and another rule for everyone else?

In the case of elected politicians the choice is simple - don’t re-elect them.

But non-elected SPADs are immune (pun intended) unless their appointment is terminated by their political masters - or they do the honourable thing and resign.

Of course a sitting MP could end up not be re-elected. However; that is not then point.

We have the press banging non about Cummings breaking the rules which is fine, they also press home the point that the public have had to abide by the rules and make sacrifices, again a fair point. Therefore; those that break the rules should be punished.
Now for us members of the public that could be a police lecture, a fine or if we persisted then perhaps a court appearance. As you progress further up the food chain things change. The 3 MPs hold public office, they are in the public eye and represent their constituents so should be setting the example. They did not, they broke the rules. Starmer has yet to make much comments on this, the press have made little comment on it either.

The press and certain parts of the establishment don’t like him for delivering Brexit, ensuring Boris got to be PM, guiding the Tory party to an election win, the influence he may have, the way he interacts with some people and they certainly don’t like the way he shakes things up. Some even moan about his dress sense as if that is of any relevance.

There is an agenda against Cummings.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

However; the drive to test out his eyesight was complete hogwash and was never going to stand scrutiny.

Totally agree I did think, good luck selling that.

Interestingly the guy who runs the gift shop at the castle is virtually his double and I thought that it might be a case of mistaken identity.
Which goes to show never apologise and never confess, front it out.

[PoshinDevon]

FROM THE DAILY TELEGRAPH 25 May 2020

TOM HARWOOD
25 May 2020 • 12:56pm
Tom Harwood

Hardly the most 'un partisan' source going . Tom Harwood is the Guido Fawkes activist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harwood

Despite what he claims, that there were Labour politicians who committed "graver misdeeds", the vast majority of the public are just not buying this. Even ignoring that none of these people were involved in making the rules, none of them relocated 260 miles when they understood they were infected. None of them took infection across the country from a hot spot area to a rural one with low incidence of the virus. Cummings and his wife did do this. What is more they then took that infection in to a local NHS Hospital, when they could have had one of their nieces that were available and 50 yards away take their nephew to the hospital, the very 'excuse' for going there in the first place which would have not involved taking infection in to a Hospital. To claim that doing this was 'less grave' than what others did is just imo the most blatant of partisan spin politics from one of the single most partisans activists out there , Tom Harwood. I do not think the majority of the British public are buying this spin.

I found this article by Katy Balls, political editor at the Spectator magazine more sober, realistic and less spinny than Mr Harwood's piece.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ ... rt-2865402

Thanks for the Spectator link, I will take a look.

How do you know and indeed how did the 3 MPs know that they were not infected at the time they travelled? They could well have been carrying the virus without even knowing it?

The facts is that these 3 have barely apologised, have not been disciplined, have not been asked to resign or been sacked nor have they been hounded by the press for many days. I am struggling to understand why some people cannot see the injustice of it. There simply is no excuse for what they did.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

The press and certain parts of the establishment don’t like him for delivering Brexit, ensuring Boris got to be PM, guiding the Tory party to an election win, the influence he may have, the way he interacts with some people and they certainly don’t like the way he shakes things up. Some even moan about his dress sense as if that is of any relevance.

There is an agenda against Cummings.

Tbh if someone does a good job for the country and in my admittedly very biased view Cummings does, in helping with Brexit and ensuring Corbyn didn’t get in, then his private life within reason is of little interest.

David Lloyd George did more for the ordinary people of this country than most but had a private life that put even Boris to shame and was corrupt but the country was a better place for DLG than without him.

If Cummings was a nonentity or not feared by the opposition then this would have got a paragraph on page 8 and done.

As for even the Conservatives demanding he resign let’s not forget that Brexit deeply divided parties as well as the country so remainer Conservatives might not be big fans of him

[erol]

Hardly the most 'un partisan' source going . Tom Harwood is the Guido Fawkes activist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harwood

Rule 7 if you can't attack the message attack the messenger.
"So you agree it is dark at night because that well know paedophile Jimmy Saville said good evening and it appeared to be dark through the window?"


Rule 8 is a variation, EG:

"So you are a vegetarian, did you start to stop eating meat after following the writing of......... ADOLF HITLER."

Like I said this was all fresh in 2015, people hadn't read Alinsky in years, but we learnt the game it's getting a bit dated and transparent now.

I do not think I attacked the messenger. I pointed out the context of who he was - extremely politically partisan by profession. Nor did I ignore his message. Hie message was 'others - specifically labour MP's committed 'graver misdeeds'. I said I do not think this is true personally nor do I think most of the public think so either and explained why I thought this. That is not ignoring the the message in my book. That is addressing it head on.

So your 'accusation' levelled at me feels a little unfair from where I am sitting especially if you compare how 'attack the messenger' was used against me here in this very thread and for considerable time explicitly as means of avoiding the message, all with not a whisper from you. Partisan I may be but I am not a professional partisan with any ability to influence people and Tom Harwood is and does have some degree of ability to influence. Given this I have to wonder if my real offence here in your eyes was not merely to have pointed out just how professionally partisan the author was , when you would have preferred it if that was not done ?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Given this I have to wonder if my real offence here in your eyes was not merely to have pointed out just how professionally partisan the author was , when you would have preferred it if that was not done ?

Erol when you link to a Guardian story and I say oh that’s going to be unbiased you generally go into apoplexy that I’m questioning your integrity

Here is your unbiased BBC giving their opinion on the story rather than reporting It.

https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/1265 ... 6/video/1‬

[erol]

There is an agenda against Cummings.

Of course there is. 'Everyone' knows this has always known this. However this does not and can not explain why in the yougov poll even amongst just Tory supporters or just amongst Brexit supporters a majority think he broke the rules.

How do you know and indeed how did the 3 MPs know that they were not infected at the time they travelled? They could well have been carrying the virus without even knowing it?

I do not know. What I do know is that they did not believe they were infected when they broke the rules, nor has there been any evidence subsequent to them breaking the rules of them having been infected at that time. That is a key difference in the Cummings case. He chose to break the rules believing his wife and himself were infected. That makes a big difference to me and I suspect to many many other people.

The facts is that these 3 have barely apologised, have not been disciplined, have not been asked to resign or been sacked nor have they been hounded by the press for many days. I am struggling to understand why some people cannot see the injustice of it. There simply is no excuse for what they did.

Barely apologise vs not apologising at all but instead defending the breaking of rules and having the PM and senior members come out and defend the breaking of the rules. Key difference. The fact is that the public figures that have been involved in the making of the rules who have been caught breaking them HAVE resigned.

If Cummings was a nonentity or not feared by the opposition then this would have got a paragraph on page 8 and done.

If he was a non entity and had been involved in making the rules or announcing them, then he would have resigned or been summarily sacked and the whole thing would have blown over in a day. That this is not happening for no other reason that he is so vital to a political side just strengthens and emphasises how there is one rule for the 'vital elite' and another for everyone else.

As for even the Conservatives demanding he resign let’s not forget that Brexit deeply divided parties as well as the country so remainer Conservatives might not be big fans of him

Look at who the dissenting Tories are. They are no exclusively from the 'anti Brexit' wing of the Tory party, which hardly exists now in any case.

That sounded total bollox tbh but suck it up it looks like he is staying

Certainly that was the part that immediately did not ring true. With a bit more time there is for me and that is all this is, my personal opinion, another gaping hole. The narrative is that the objective of the decision Cummings made was to actually reduce the chance of them spreading infection to anyone else and if the situation became extreme the only person they would potentially have to put at risk was a Niece or two in low category group and willing to take that risk. This narrative is blown apart for me when Cummings wife took the child to the local NHS hospital whilst she believed she was infected. If the objective truly was to reduce the chance of spreading the virus then why did one of the nieces not take the child to hospital ? They claim that they dialled 999 and were told to take the child there but unless and until it is clear that they had informed emergency call centre that they understood they themselves were infected, this will remain for me clear evidence that 'ensuring the least possible spread of infection from themselves' was their driving motivation is just not true.

[erol]

Given this I have to wonder if my real offence here in your eyes was not merely to have pointed out just how professionally partisan the author was , when you would have preferred it if that was not done ?

Erol when you link to a Guardian story and I say oh that’s going to be unbiased you generally go into apoplexy that I’m questioning your integrity

I do not think that is true but please feel free to show examples if I am wrong.

What I have complained about is when you use the messenger simply as a means of avoiding the message entirely. You know the very thing you just accused ME of doing when in fact I had NOT done it. Now that sort of thing will get a rise from me.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I do not think that is true but please feel free to show examples if I am wrong.

Ah now I see the point of the 5000 word posts now. Errr plough through your old posts or castrate myself with a spoon, the agony of choice.
Anyhow off to the cutlery drawer catch you later

[PoshinDevon]

There is an agenda against Cummings.

Of course there is. 'Everyone' knows this has always known this. However this does not and can not explain why in the yougov poll even amongst just Tory supporters or just amongst Brexit supporters a majority think he broke the rules.

How do you know and indeed how did the 3 MPs know that they were not infected at the time they travelled? They could well have been carrying the virus without even knowing it?

I do not know. What I do know is that they did not believe they were infected when they broke the rules, nor has there been any evidence subsequent to them breaking the rules of them having been infected at that time. That is a key difference in the Cummings case. He chose to break the rules believing his wife and himself were infected. That makes a big difference to me and I suspect to many many other people.

The facts is that these 3 have barely apologised, have not been disciplined, have not been asked to resign or been sacked nor have they been hounded by the press for many days. I am struggling to understand why some people cannot see the injustice of it. There simply is no excuse for what they did.

Barely apologise vs not apologising at all but instead defending the breaking of rules and having the PM and senior members come out and defend the breaking of the rules. Key difference. The fact is that the public figures that have been involved in the making of the rules who have been caught breaking them HAVE resigned.

If Cummings was a nonentity or not feared by the opposition then this would have got a paragraph on page 8 and done.

If he was a non entity and had been involved in making the rules or announcing them, then he would have resigned or been summarily sacked and the whole thing would have blown over in a day. That this is not happening for no other reason that he is so vital to a political side just strengthens and emphasises how there is one rule for the 'vital elite' and another for everyone else.

As for even the Conservatives demanding he resign let’s not forget that Brexit deeply divided parties as well as the country so remainer Conservatives might not be big fans of him

Look at who the dissenting Tories are. They are no exclusively from the 'anti Brexit' wing of the Tory party, which hardly exists now in any case.

That sounded total bollox tbh but suck it up it looks like he is staying

Certainly that was the part that immediately did not ring true. With a bit more time there is for me and that is all this is, my personal opinion, another gaping hole. The narrative is that the objective of the decision Cummings made was to actually reduce the chance of them spreading infection to anyone else and if the situation became extreme the only person they would potentially have to put at risk was a Niece or two in low category group and willing to take that risk. This narrative is blown apart for me when Cummings wife took the child to the local NHS hospital whilst she believed she was infected. If the objective truly was to reduce the chance of spreading the virus then why did one of the nieces not take the child to hospital ? They claim that they dialled 999 and were told to take the child there but unless and until it is clear that they had informed emergency call centre that they understood they themselves were infected, this will remain for me clear evidence that 'ensuring the least possible spread of infection from themselves' was their driving motivation is just not true.

Firstly thank you for agreeing that there is an agenda against Cummings.

It makes not one jot whether those 3 MPs believed or did not believe they were infected with the virus. When they travelled they had absolutely no idea if they had the virus or not. The advice was not to travel. They broke the rules plain and simple and again there is no defence for it.

As I have already stated on balance I believe Cummings should have gone. However; his boss decided to defend him (In my opinion not very well) and the man himself gave his version of events. The press as we know have been all over this like a rash for the last 5 days. Compare this to Starmer who has said barely nothing or taken action against his MPs and of course the press who have virtually ignored this story of 3 MPs who broke the rules. Whether they made the rules as you put it or not, they are in office and should be the ones setting the example. Again I cannot see how you justify the hounding of one person whilst effectively ignoring 3 others. The public are rightly not happy about what Cummings has done, the press have banged on about sacrifices we have all made and held up Cummings as a sacrifice. If you dig into the circumstances surrounding the 3 MPs who broke the rules there appears to be less to defend their actions compared to that of Cummings.

I thought you would be the champion of fair play but it seems not. Your only defence for the 3 MPs seems to be “they never made the rules” so it doesn’t really matter as much. I find that strange.

[erol]

Firstly thank you for agreeing that there is an agenda against Cummings.

Is there not an agenda against every single political person and is the degree of it not also largely proportional to how effective that person is perceived to be politically ?

It makes not one jot whether those 3 MPs believed or did not believe they were infected with the virus. When they travelled they had absolutely no idea if they had the virus or not. The advice was not to travel. They broke the rules plain and simple and again there is no defence for it.

OK I have not made myself clear here. I am NOT defending others that broke the rules. I am just admitting that there is degrees of seriousness in each and every breaking of the rules. Something that I might add is the basis of the Tom Holland article you posted. Not every breach is the same in terms of it's seriousness. How serious a breach is, is clearly in my view related to things like, breaking the rules believing you are not infected and doing so believing you are. The later is more serious because there is more potential harm. It is the same with if you are involved in making the rules or not. If you are and break the rules then there is more potential harm as a consequence because of how it may affect others decision to break or stick to the rules. Yes every one who breaks the rules should face some sanction but that sanction should be proportional to the seriousness of the breach. DC is facing no sanction at all for breaking the rules even when his breach had much greater potential for harm than others that did get resign or get sacked. In order to defend his breach the government is saying he did not break the rules. That is just throwing petrol on the flames.

I am NOT defending others that also broke the rules. Not labour others like the examples you give and not Tory ones either like Robert Jenrick. I am saying there is a degree of seriousness in such breaches and DC is at an extreme end of seriousness and yet at the zero end of sanction and this explains why the PUBLIC are so much more aggrieved at this breach than others. Yes there is an element of 'get Cummings' but the extent and breath of anger at his actions and the determination to claim he did nothing wrong is too great and too widespread across all other divisions for this alone to be a satisfying explanation for me.

I thought you would be the champion of fair play but it seems not. Your only defence for the 3 MPs seems to be “they never made the rules” so it doesn’t really matter as much. I find that strange.

It is not a defence. It is merely an attempt to explain why the public reaction has been so different imo. The idea that sanction for breaking rules is proportional to the degree of seriousness of the breach is not an unusual concept. It runs through our legal system and our national consciousness I think.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

and DC is at an extreme end of seriousness

Like a dog with a bone.

So when you said an apology was needed, that was nonsense, you really needed that confession and only his resignation or sacking will do right?
Think I'm getting the picture. It's like when Boris had that row with his girlfriend and that neighbour just happened to record it, how on earth he wasn't forced to resign for what was attempted murder in all but name?
Can't wait for Gove to get a parking ticket. "But he was badly parked and a child could have run out into the road......"

You've got 40 seats to try this on it should keep you occupied for the next few years lol

I am loving the fact that the Tories seem to be willing to front this out and cappuccinos are getting spat out in indignation the length of Hampstead, the new red wall. That's the only part of this nonsense that isn't boring me senseless tbh

[erol]

So when you said an apology was needed, that was nonsense, you really needed that confession and only his resignation or sacking will do right?

I have said what I have said. Then there is what you claim I am saying and they just are not the same thing. What happened, happened. The government and Cummings then have choices as to how to react. I have always been of the view and remain of the view that had they reacted with mea culpa and contrition, then the negative outcomes for Cummings, Johnson the government AND the nation would have been significantly less than they are with the reaction of 'no, he did nothing wrong, you lot just do not understand properly'. I think this is plain and obvious myself. That is what I have consistently said.

There are some facts here. It is a fact that the public outrage at Cummings actions and the subsequent refusal to admit any wrong doing by him and by Johnson is of a scale and breadth that is massively different from outrage from the public at the likes of Kinnock or Government minister like Jenrick. That to me is plain and clear. I seek to understand why that is the case. Part of the reason is DC is higher profile and part of it is he has a lot of enemies, in the media and in the public at large. However to me that clearly is not sufficient to explain the breath of this anger given that a majority of Tory supports think he broke the rules, a majority of Brexit supporters think he broke the rules and to date 30 Tory MP's have come out and publicly said they think he broke the rules. Something else and more is going on. That is what I clearly see. I am only like a dog with a bone in the face of your dogged denial of what is plainly evident, itself driven by your political bias. I do not think you refuse to see or accept how his behaviour was different from Kinnock's , thus leading to a different reaction from the public. I think you can see this but just choose to deny this reality because of your political bias.

I am loving the fact that the Tories seem to be willing to front this out and cappuccinos are getting spat out in indignation the length of Hampstead, the new red wall. That's the only part of this nonsense that isn't boring me senseless tbh

Again just plain denial of what is obviously true as far as I am concerned. That it is NOT just cappuccino sipping leftist in Hampstead that are seriously upset with this strategy of 'just front it out' by the government. It is clearly and obviously far far wider than that. You just simply refuse to accept this reality as far as I can see despite the overwhelming evidence of the truth of it.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Again just plain denial of what is obviously true as far as I am concerned. That it is NOT just cappuccino sipping leftist in Hampstead that are seriously upset with this strategy of 'just front it out' by the government. It is clearly and obviously far far wider than that. You just simply refuse to accept this reality as far as I can see despite the overwhelming evidence of the truth of it.

You really should write for The Guardian as far as I can tell you don’t need much journalist experience or even particularly great spelling just a bit of activism and constant and very very selective outrage.

You know the kind of thing;

Tory says something slightly sexist, hang him.
Others make women sit in different halls for meetings, tumbleweed.

A Christian baker won’t make a wedding cake for Keith and Norman, boycott their shop.
Others protest against any sort of teaching in a school of homosexuality, tumbleweed.

Boris love life is a bit of a car crash, sexist rapist let’s do a fluffy article on Jeremy’s three successful marriages.

You’ll be a natural

[PoshinDevon]

Firstly thank you for agreeing that there is an agenda against Cummings.

Is there not an agenda against every single political person and is the degree of it not also largely proportional to how effective that person is perceived to be politically ?

It makes not one jot whether those 3 MPs believed or did not believe they were infected with the virus. When they travelled they had absolutely no idea if they had the virus or not. The advice was not to travel. They broke the rules plain and simple and again there is no defence for it.

OK I have not made myself clear here. I am NOT defending others that broke the rules. I am just admitting that there is degrees of seriousness in each and every breaking of the rules. Something that I might add is the basis of the Tom Holland article you posted. Not every breach is the same in terms of it's seriousness. How serious a breach is, is clearly in my view related to things like, breaking the rules believing you are not infected and doing so believing you are. The later is more serious because there is more potential harm. It is the same with if you are involved in making the rules or not. If you are and break the rules then there is more potential harm as a consequence because of how it may affect others decision to break or stick to the rules. Yes every one who breaks the rules should face some sanction but that sanction should be proportional to the seriousness of the breach. DC is facing no sanction at all for breaking the rules even when his breach had much greater potential for harm than others that did get resign or get sacked. In order to defend his breach the government is saying he did not break the rules. That is just throwing petrol on the flames.

I am NOT defending others that also broke the rules. Not labour others like the examples you give and not Tory ones either like Robert Jenrick. I am saying there is a degree of seriousness in such breaches and DC is at an extreme end of seriousness and yet at the zero end of sanction and this explains why the PUBLIC are so much more aggrieved at this breach than others. Yes there is an element of 'get Cummings' but the extent and breath of anger at his actions and the determination to claim he did nothing wrong is too great and too widespread across all other divisions for this alone to be a satisfying explanation for me.

I thought you would be the champion of fair play but it seems not. Your only defence for the 3 MPs seems to be “they never made the rules” so it doesn’t really matter as much. I find that strange.

It is not a defence. It is merely an attempt to explain why the public reaction has been so different imo. The idea that sanction for breaking rules is proportional to the degree of seriousness of the breach is not an unusual concept. It runs through our legal system and our national consciousness I think.

I am still amazed you will not condemn the press actions which has fuelled public reaction against Cummings and nor will you come out and say the 3 other MPs who in my opinion have blatantly broken the rules should also go. You argument still seems to me to be around he who made the rules is more guilty than the others. So on that note I am out.

[erol]

I am still amazed you will not condemn the press actions which has fuelled public reaction against Cummings

You are amazed that in a thread that asks members to vote on if they think he broke the rules I will not condemn the press ? Is the thread about the press ? Is there anything stopping you from starting a thread about the press ? The press often behave as scum. They did before the Cummings incident, during it and will do after it. There is nothing new there and nothing to discuss imo. There is right wing press and there is left wing press. That is nothing new. The idea that the outrage millions of ordinary people righteously feel over this incident is because they have been 'fuelled' (read tricked, misled, fooled) by the media is inherently and deeply insulting to those people. When similar arguments were used against those that voted to leave the EU you were disgusted and insulted and rightly so. Yet now you use the same style of argument as far as I can see. People are too stupid to know their own mind, they are not really angry, they do not really have justification to feel angry, they have just be led around like sheep by the media. I am amazed that you can put forward such a position.

and nor will you come out and say the 3 other MPs who in my opinion have blatantly broken the rules should also go. You argument still seems to me to be around he who made the rules is more guilty than the others. So on that note I am out.

Will you PLEASE look at what I have said. I have NOT called for Cummings to be sacked or to resign. Against repeated accusations from ETS that this is what I have and am calling for I have repeatedly made clear over and over and explicitly that I have not and am NOT calling for Cummings to be sacked or resign. All I have said , repeatedly is that it is my view that had he admitted wrong doing , rather than deny it and made Johnson spend shed loads of political capital defending it, it would have been better for everyone and most importantly the NATION. This has been my consistent position through out. Against this reality you now slate me because I will not call for the resignation of the the three left wing MP's when I have not even called for such in the case of Cummings ? Now that IS amazing.

[erol]

You really should write for The Guardian as far as I can tell you don’t need much journalist experience or even particularly great spelling just a bit of activism and constant and very very selective outrage.

Actually I once wrote, briefly, for the Telegraph. Paid to write articles by them. 4 in total.

You should write for Guido Fawlkes.

You know the kind of thing, Tory MP helps his mate have a journo beaten up, gives taxpayer freebies to his latest mistress, commits unnatural acts with a dead pig - move along nothing to see here, just the jolly japes of the upper classes - watch out for the real danger, bearded cappuccino sipping leftists.

[erol]

We have all seen people break the rules. Here. Every day since there has been rules. It annoys people, angers them even - we have seen countless threads here and examples here.

What you appear to be telling me PiD as far as I understand you, is that if you see someone breaking those rules and then discover not only are they breaking the rules, they are also symptomatic, know they are and believe they are infected, this is no way makes you more annoyed, more angry. Or that you can not understand why someone else might be more angry on discovering this. If this is what you are telling be I find that truly astonishing to be honest and frank. Then you find out they broke rules , knew they were symptomatic and believed they were infected AND they were involved in the creation of those rules. Are you really saying that on discovering this you would not be even more annoyed, more angry ? Then you fins out they broke thew rules, knew they were infected when doing so, were involved in making those rules and the PM and some parts of the Government insist that actually they did not break the rules. Are you really saying that such a person deserves no more criticism, no more calling out, no more sanction than someone who just broke the rules ? Is that your position or have I misunderstood you ?

[erol]

For the record some of the people who, unlike me here in this thread, HAVE called for DC resignation , along with PiD

George Freeman Mid Norfolk
Douglas Ross Moray
Harriett Baldwin West Worcestershire
Roger Gale North Thanet
Martin Vickers Cleethorpes
Peter Bone Wellingborough
Robert Goodwill Scarborough and Whitby
Paul Maynard Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Mark Pawsey Rugby
Robert Syms Poole
Tim Loughton East Worthing and Shoreham
Jason McCartney Colne Valley
Peter Aldous Waveney
John Stevenson Carlisle
Caroline Nokes Romsey and Southampton North
Damian Collins Folkestone and Hythe
Philip Davies Shipley
Julian Sturdy York Outer
Alec Shelbrooke Elmet and Rothwell
Mark Harper Forest of Dean
Stephen Hammond Wimbledon
Simon Hoare North Dorset
Simon Jupp East Devon
David Warburton Somerton and Frome
Jeremy Wright Kenilworth and Southam
Mark Garnier Wyre Forest
Andrew Percy Brigg and Goole
Elliot Colburn Carshalton and Wallington
Jackie Doyle Price Thurrock
Bob Neill Bromley and Chislehurst
Laurence Robertson Tewkesbury
James Gray North Wiltshire
Craig Whittaker Calder Valley
Robert Largan High Peak
Andrew Selous South West Bedfordshire
Duncan Baker North Norfolk
Bob Stewart Beckenham
Andrew Jones Harrogate and Knaresborough
David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Giles Watling Clacton
Pauline Latham Mid Derbyshire
Henry Smith Crawley
Stephen Metcalfe South Basildon and East Thurrock
Royston Smith Southampton Itchen

(there is 44 of them and they are all sitting Tory MP's)

You can add me to the group who have been critical of Cummings, but who stop short of calling for him to go

Penny Mordaunt Portsmouth North
Sajid Javid Bromsgrove
Richard Holden North West Durham
Dehenna Davison Bishop Auckland
Paul Howell Sedgefield
Christian Wakeford Bury South
Fiona Bruce Congleton
Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green
Tom Tugendhat Tonbridge and Malling
Robert Halfon Harlow
Craig Mackinlay South Thanet
Jeremy Hunt South West Surrey
William Wragg Hazel Grove
Jonathan Gullis Stoke-on-Trent North
Steve Brine Winchester
Damian Green Ashford
Alicia Kearns Rutland and Melton

(that is another 17 sitting Tory MP's)

I guess all of them have been fulled, fooled, and bamboozled by the media as well ? I guess none of them can see how clearly that this is all just a media stitch up and not a real and serious issue.

And another Katy Balls' article, from the Spectator’s deputy political editor but not in the Spectator
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-lockdown

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Actually I once wrote, briefly, for the Telegraph. Paid to write articles by them. 4 in total

Very impressive. Sure it wasn’t 1 article that they had to spread across 4 issues because of its length? can’t promise The Guardian will pay you, depends on those £1s coming in I guess

You should write for Guido Fawlkes.

I’m afraid I don’t have the sources to bring down Peter Hain or Gordon Brown’s main adviser Damien McBride.
That’s journalism, any examples of journalism rather than activism from regular Guardian columnists Owen Jones or Ash Sarkar. To repeat America, UK bad rest of world good won’t count I’m afraid.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Will you PLEASE look at what I have said. I have NOT called for Cummings to be sacked or to resign. Against repeated accusations from ETS that this is what I have and am calling for I have repeatedly made clear over and over and explicitly that I have not and am NOT calling for Cummings to be sacked or resign. All I have said , repeatedly is that it is my view that had he admitted wrong doing.......

I have doubts whether you inhabit planet earth at times but I’m sure you are previously all over previous pile ons. When have you ever known an apology call off the dogs? They scream for an apology because screaming confess, confess sounds a bit Stalinist but they are much the same thing. The second he admits anything the harassment will double because the mob will be one step nearer their objective.

You know this and want this but wish to keep your wide eyed naïveté. “I never thought they were taking her to a camp and certain death, I didn’t want that I just didn’t think it was fair that they had converted their loft into living quarters without planning permission.”

You want Cummings gone, own it and I’d have a bit more respect for this thread.

[erol]

Actually I once wrote, briefly, for the Telegraph. Paid to write articles by them. 4 in total

Very impressive. Sure it wasn’t 1 article that they had to spread across 4 issues because of its length? can’t promise The Guardian will pay you, depends on those £1s coming in I guess

You should write for Guido Fawlkes.

I’m afraid I don’t have the sources to bring down Peter Hain or Gordon Brown’s main adviser Damien McBride.
That’s journalism, any examples of journalism rather than activism from regular Guardian columnists Owen Jones or Ash Sarkar. To repeat America, UK bad rest of world good won’t count I’m afraid.

All I am hearing is

Right wing political activists that systematically use partial and biased reporting to try influence opinion are 'investigative journalists' and 'good'. Left wing ones are not and are 'bad'.

As far as I can see you systematically accuse me and others generally of doing something that you yourself on any fair comparisons do to a much greater degree and with a much greater frequency. Tory good, everything else bad.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

You know the kind of thing, Tory MP helps his mate have a journo beaten up, gives taxpayer freebies to his latest mistress, commits unnatural acts with a dead pig - move along nothing to see here, just the jolly japes of the upper classes - watch out for the real danger, bearded cappuccino sipping leftists.

Wow you are getting desperate

Your making someone listening to a drunken friends ravings about harming someone and playing along with it to humour them into a murder plot.

Piggate was a 4th hand account of a ritual by the Piers Gaveston Society not The Bullingdon Club that there is no proof happened but coincidentally mirrors a well known episode of The Black Mirror and even the few that said this ritual happened, admit that it didn’t happen during Cameron and Johnson’s time there and there is zero proof they were even members of the Piers Gaveston Society.
Its just part of the whole Eton boys bit usually forwarded by people who try to cover up their own extremely privileged backgrounds.

As for taxpayers money and expense scandals do you really want to go down that road as Labour seem to generally be found to have their noses in the trough just as much if not more than the Tories.

Still if you buy into the whole chlorinated chicken schtick you’ll swallow anything I guess.

[erol]

You want Cummings gone, own it and I’d have a bit more respect for this thread.

As ever your argument REQUIRES you to ignore what I say and have said consistently and instead replace it with what you claim I think, believe and want. Why is that ?

What I want is the least bad outcome for the nation from this mess. That is my dominant and over riding want.

There is overwhelming consensus, from the government own experts in behaviour and from the public at large and every subset of it , from many Tory MP's, Tory voters, Brexit supporters, across all regions and age groups that the DC row will negatively impact the government’s ability to get future lockdown messaging across to the public. This is serious stuff with real potential grave consequences for the UK going forward.

My belief and simple consistent contention is that had some contrition been shown by DC and the Government in response to this mess, rather than just trying to claim he did nothing wrong at all, then the potential consequences of the above would and could only be less, meaning less potential serious damage to the UK as a result. Now my belief may well be wrong but it IS my belief, has been my consistent position from the start and is why I have not personally called for DC resignation in this thread. I say if he is to stay then do that in a way that leads to the least potential damage to the UK and not a way the leads to the most.

[erol]

You know the kind of thing, Tory MP helps his mate have a journo beaten up, gives taxpayer freebies to his latest mistress, commits unnatural acts with a dead pig - move along nothing to see here, just the jolly japes of the upper classes - watch out for the real danger, bearded cappuccino sipping leftists.

Wow you are getting desperate

You are right my comparison was a bad one. A more apposite example would have been

"Jeremy Corbyn talks about social justice - he is a bearded cappuccino sipping, Jew hating, Maoist that wants to outlaw all private ownership of homes."

This is the kind of 'journalism' I think you would excel at.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

You are right my comparison was a bad one. A more apposite example would have been

"Jeremy Corbyn talks about social justice

For all not the Jew

[erol]

You are right my comparison was a bad one. A more apposite example would have been

"Jeremy Corbyn talks about social justice

For all not the Jew

QED

[EnjoyingTheSun]

There is overwhelming consensus, from the government own experts in behaviour and from the public at large and every subset of it , from many Tory MP's, Tory voters, Brexit supporters, across all regions and age groups that the DC row will negatively impact the government’s ability to get future lockdown messaging across to the public. This is serious stuff with real potential grave consequences for the UK going forward.

Ok;

Experts on behaviour
Pseudo scientists who generally get about 1 in 25 of their predictions right.

Tory MPs
Like Labour MPs pretty much just care about their seat. Its a quarter million income if you fill the right paperwork in so any thought that might be risked by a change in the opinion polls and they will flip flop until the cows come home. I'm sure a fair amount of die hard Corbyn supporting MPs are shuffling over to Starmer. Not much integrity amongst MPs, too much money at risk.

Tory Voters Brexit Supporters
My particular favourite. Common tactic on twitter this. Say you have voted Tory for 40 years but......plays very well. Generally a quick investigation reveals that they are actually a committed SWP supporter. Likewise many Conservatives joined the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn knowing it would pretty much guarantee a Tory government. It plays well but as I said before it was fresh in 2015 but a bit dated now

[EnjoyingTheSun]

You are right my comparison was a bad one. A more apposite example would have been

"Jeremy Corbyn talks about social justice

For the many not the Jew

Apologies I misquoted and had to edit

[erol]

There is overwhelming consensus, from the government own experts in behaviour and from the public at large and every subset of it , from many Tory MP's, Tory voters, Brexit supporters, across all regions and age groups that the DC row will negatively impact the government’s ability to get future lockdown messaging across to the public. This is serious stuff with real potential grave consequences for the UK going forward.

Ok;

Experts on behaviour
Pseudo scientists who generally get about 1 in 25 of their predictions right.

Tory MPs
Like Labour MPs pretty much just care about their seat. Its a quarter million income if you fill the right paperwork in so any thought that might be risked by a change in the opinion polls and they will flip flop until the cows come home. I'm sure a fair amount of die hard Corbyn supporting MPs are shuffling over to Starmer. Not much integrity amongst MPs, too much money at risk.

Tory Voters Brexit Supporters
My particular favourite. Common tactic on twitter this. Say you have voted Tory for 40 years but......plays very well. Generally a quick investigation reveals that they are actually a committed SWP supporter. Likewise many Conservatives joined the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn knowing it would pretty much guarantee a Tory government. It plays well but as I said before it was fresh in 2015 but a bit dated now

The facts remain there is overwhelming consensus on this, of a kind that is extremely rare in it's broadness and depth. Still best not to let something as mundane as reality get in the way of your expression of your political bias and prejudice. Even then I am not claiming I am right. I explicitly say I might be wrong. Regardless of if I am right or wrong on this, me believing it, is a rational and simple (occams razor) basis on which my actual 'want' as expressed directly by me repeatedly is based. Compared with your explanation that is based not on what I have said or why I have said it but is instead based merely on what you claim I want (DC resignation) and in spite of what I have actually said. Repeatedly.

[erol]

And once more in the face of constantly being told by others what my position is, my position is as follow and always has been

We can't really have a rule that applies to everyone except the government elite.

He could have come out and apologised and said this was a bad mistake and I'm sorry about it and I shouldn't have done it. And I think he probably would have carried on.

But to try and pretend he didn't break the rules just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Now these are not my words but they do reflect my consistent position on this. They are the words of Peter Bone. Peter William Bone FCA is a British Conservative Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament for Wellingborough since 2005. He campaigned for Brexit in the EU Referendum and is part of the political advisory board of Leave Means Leave

Pretty clearly then we have life long major and fundamental political differences but on this issue we are aligned pretty much 100%

[EnjoyingTheSun]

The facts remain there is overwhelming consensus on this, of a kind that is extremely rare in it's broadness and depth. Still best not to let something as mundane as reality get in the way of your expression of your political bias and prejudice.

On all the polls you've quoted how many people do you think just put the phone down or walked past the guy with the clipboard? I'd put them in the don't give a shoot one way or the other camp, or as I like to call them, the vast majority.

Lets take your poll, 37 voted. Now does that mean only 37 people only ever go on this forum? I don't know only Soner might have an idea how many unique visitors there are but I doubt it.
So let's assume that maybe 150 visit this forum on a daily basis. Might be more might be less but if it's much less good luck punting out the advertising.
So that leaves 113 or 75% who didn't care enough to vote.
Some may have voted don't care had that been an option, or some might not have bothered voting at all which doesn't lend well to your argument that the majority of the population are storming the barricades on this argument.

This is pretty much why Labour got annihilated at the last election.

For example some people in the UK care very deeply about the Palestinian problem, one way or the other. Some will carry a Palestinian flag although strangely they hate flags as that promotes nationalism. Some think about it a bit and can see arguments one way or the other.

But here's the rub, most people DON'T CARE THAT MUCH.

So when you pop up to your red wall in the North East canvassing with your little package of causes about Trans rights or Palestinian rights you are talking to people who might not have worked for 20 years. Or hope to pay less tax so they can move into a bigger home etc.
They have enough problems to fill their daily routine without having to look for other people's problems.
That might make them selfish but that's your average voter. That's why Thatcher was so successful she never underestimated self interest.

So visiting your little middle class enclaves full of thousands of students taking a day off from their political science degree singing oh Jeremy Corbyn doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you I'm afraid.

[erol]

What were you saying about getting desperate ? There is a reason so many Tory MPs are publicly expressing their dissatisfaction. That reason is they have ways and means of judging what matters to their constituents and what does not.

[PoshinDevon]

And once more in the face of constantly being told by others what my position is, my position is as follow and always has been

We can't really have a rule that applies to everyone except the government elite.

Exactly my point. Therefore the 3 MPs who did travel have no excuse. I am not sure your tack of “they never made the rules” is relevant at all. So do you agree they should also be disciplined by their party, resign or be sacked?

Cummings is being hounded by the press whilst these 3 are not and we all know the reason why. Hint: It isn’t all about a trip to Durham.


He could have come out and apologised and said this was a bad mistake and I'm sorry about it and I shouldn't have done it. And I think he probably would have carried on.

But to try and pretend he didn't break the rules just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Now these are not my words but they do reflect my consistent position on this. They are the words of Peter Bone. Peter William Bone FCA is a British Conservative Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament for Wellingborough since 2005. He campaigned for Brexit in the EU Referendum and is part of the political advisory board of Leave Means Leave

Pretty clearly then we have life long major and fundamental political differences but on this issue we are aligned pretty much 100%

Fully agree there cannot be one rule for the political elite or those in public office and another for us plebs.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

And once more in the face of constantly being told by others what my position is, my position is as follow and always has been

We can't really have a rule that applies to everyone except the government elite.

He could have come out and apologised and said this was a bad mistake and I'm sorry about it and I shouldn't have done it. And I think he probably would have carried on.

But to try and pretend he didn't break the rules just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Now these are not my words but they do reflect my consistent position on this. They are the words of Peter Bone. Peter William Bone FCA is a British Conservative Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament for Wellingborough since 2005. He campaigned for Brexit in the EU Referendum and is part of the political advisory board of Leave Means Leave

Pretty clearly then we have life long major and fundamental political differences but on this issue we are aligned pretty much 100%

"He could have come out and apologised and said this was a bad mistake and I'm sorry about it and I shouldn't have done it. And I think he probably would have carried on."
I think it is safe to say that Peter William Bone FCA (I too will use his full and correct title like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon because that will indicate my post is full and correct) wont be running the next Conservative election campaign as he doesn't know how this works. Cummings does.

So for the last time, those out to get Cummings don't want an apology they want a confession. If they get an apology they will ramp up their campaign into overdrive, did an apology save Tim Hunt?
Erol, any thoughts on the Tim Hunt case or are you going to body swerve that in your usual Ryan Giggs manner as it blows up your narrative that "all we want is an apology, we are reasonable people we don't want you to lose your job."

Like I say it was effective a few years ago now its getting a bit tired. The other side with some exceptions like Peter Bonehead FCA can see through it and aren't playing. Bad luck '

[erol]

I am not sure your tack of “they never made the rules” is relevant at all. So do you agree they should also be disciplined by their party, resign or be sacked?

I agree that the need for them to show contrition for what they did, rather than require the government to say they did nothing wrong, is in direct proportion to how much doing so may mitigate potential damage of people increasingly ignoring government guidelines going forward.

[erol]

(I too will use his full and correct title like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon because that will indicate my post is full and correct)

Or maybe I just copy pasted from his Wikipedia bio because it was expedient to do so. Occams razor.

So for the last time, those out to get Cummings don't want an apology they want a confession. If they get an apology they will ramp up their campaign into overdrive, did an apology save Tim Hunt?

And again for those, myself included, that just want to see the least damage done to the country as a result of this mess, then some contrition would be sufficient. The universe is not divided in two binary states that either want DC sacked or not, with nothing in between possible. That is just you trying to impose a reality on the universe that does not exist, indeed can not exists, to suit your needs.

The idea that the only way for DC to remain is for him and the government to deny he did anything wrong, is to me patent nonsense. What is more I sincerely believe it would have cost Johnson and this Government significantly less political capital keeping him place following some indication of contrition than it is costing by going down the 'he did nothing wrong' route. Which is some small 'silver lining' for me given my politics but one lined up against the very real and serious potential ongoing damage to the UK's efforts to deal with the virus such denial may lead to.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I am not sure your tack of “they never made the rules” is relevant at all. So do you agree they should also be disciplined by their party, resign or be sacked?

I agree that the need for them to show contrition for what they did, rather than require the government to say they did nothing wrong, is in direct proportion to how much doing so may mitigate potential damage of people increasingly ignoring government guidelines going forward.

Posh, Erol and the pile on brigade want their confession.
Then the pile on brigade move to phase two of the pile on when it will get even more nasty.

At that point Erol can move to his angelic "all I wanted was to know if they had planning permission to have Anne Frank in the loft....... I never envisaged.....but at the end of the day rules are rules."

You can bring up Kinnock etc all you want and Erol will brush them off as quickly as possible before moving back to Cummings because he is excited that the Satan Cummings might go. He will keep digging that chip paper out of the bin and drying the grease and vinegar off.

I'll at least be honest, I want Cummings to stay because he is effective at what he does which fits in with my views but mainly because of how much he triggers the left. You can't buy entertainment like that

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Or maybe I just copy pasted from his Wikipedia bio because it was expedient to do so. Occams razor.

So basically someone you didn't have a clue who he was yesterday but will now quote as if he is Confucius?
What is the gig with Tommy Robinson- Stephen Yaxley-Lennon bit. I know you do it because all the Guardianistas do it but whats the point? If you are more hardcore do you call him Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon? I know it isn't his real name so I assume all Guardian readers ask for Robert Zimmerman's latest record? Seems a bit time consuming but.......

I wont bother with the rest of the post because it's the usual I just want a confession and I'll make the pain stop nonsense.
I would've been interested in your view on the Tim Hunt case but I know you wont go within a country mile of that.

[PoshinDevon]

I am not sure your tack of “they never made the rules” is relevant at all. So do you agree they should also be disciplined by their party, resign or be sacked?

I agree that the need for them to show contrition for what they did, rather than require the government to say they did nothing wrong, is in direct proportion to how much doing so may mitigate potential damage of people increasingly ignoring government guidelines going forward.

I understand that you want “them” to show contrition. Cummings has made a statement to detail what he did and the decisions he made surrounding what he did. The 3 MPs have not, nor have they shown contrition.

However; the above isn’t really that relevant as that was not my question. So maybe you could answer my question?

[erol]

So basically someone you didn't have a clue who he was yesterday but will now quote as if he is Confucius?

I quote him saying exactly what I have been consistently saying here in the face of you ignoring what I have been consistently saying and telling ME what I think and want and why. Just an example that not only are there others saying exactly what I have been saying , that you just keep calling lies and then move on to telling me what I am really saying, there is an example who happens to also be a Tory MP and major 'Brexiteer to boot'. Nothing to do with Confucius. Nothing to do with how right we are. Everything to do with how wrong your 'method' of 'attack' is.

What is the gig with Tommy Robinson- Stephen Yaxley-Lennon bit. I know you do it because all the Guardianistas do it but whats the point? If you are more hardcore do you call him Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon? I know it isn't his real name so I assume all Guardian readers ask for Robert Zimmerman's latest record? Seems a bit time consuming but.......

My choice of using his real name is 'political'. I have never denied that and have openly stated it in the past. It is my choice. Just as I chose to not refer to Johnson by his more cuddly 'man of the people' first name as many do. My copy and paste re Peter Bone was not political. It was just an expedient copy paste given the point I was making. Your assumption and accusation that it was and must have been political was and is just plain wrong. Of course I do not expect you to admit your error or show any contrition. I would expect you to make out you made no error.

I would've been interested in your view on the Tim Hunt case but I know you wont go within a country mile of that.

I have never heard of Tim Hunt or his case and you will have to forgive me if I am reluctant to go and spend time and energy researching it for your benefit whilst you yourself continue to ignore what I am and have said over what you tell me I am saying and have said and have and are 'swerving' at least as many of the points I have and am making as I am yours.

[erol]

However; the above isn’t really that relevant as that was not my question. So maybe you could answer my question?

Well I feel I have tried to answer the question, multiple times. Clearly there is some 'block' here, from my side, yours a combination, I do not know. If your question is why am I not calling for Kinnock's resignation as an MP, the answer is because I am not calling for DC's either.

Maybe you could answer my questions here PiD https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/view ... 05#p254805 ?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

What is the gig with Tommy Robinson- Stephen Yaxley-Lennon bit. I know you do it because all the Guardianistas do it but whats the point? If you are more hardcore do you call him Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon? I know it isn't his real name so I assume all Guardian readers ask for Robert Zimmerman's latest record? Seems a bit time consuming but.......

My choice of using his real name is 'political'. I have never denied that and have openly stated it in the past. It is my choice.
[/quote]

And coincidentally the choice of all Guardianistas.

Call him what you like, personally I use the name someone is best known as because I like a Simple Life as Reg Dwight once sang.

I just wondered what was the point, I'm not seeing Tommy Robinson as any more cuddly then Stephen Yaxley-Lennon tbh. I don't think he has cut the hyphenated bit out to hide his non existent privileged back ground as Tony Benn or Andrew Drummond-Murray has.
I can see that Murray would do it after all if you are going to suddenly move to Labour of decades as a member of the Communist Party when Corbyn took over why not have a little name change and sell the Picasso as you become a man of the people.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I have never heard of Tim Hunt or his case and you will have to forgive me if I am reluctant to go and spend time and energy researching it for your benefit

I can help you there. Here's a link, it's from The Guardian so it must be true.

Basically the pile on brigade have managed to get a great scientist the sack for making at worst a poor joke. He apologised countless times but the mob had the taste of blood in their mouths so his apology just spurred them on.
Several female scientists who had worked closely with him testified that he was in no way sexist and in fact had helped them beyond measure in an often male dominated field.
It's by no means the only example of this kind of thing but for me one of the saddest.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... he-country

[PoshinDevon]

However; the above isn’t really that relevant as that was not my question. So maybe you could answer my question?

Well I feel I have tried to answer the question, multiple times. Clearly there is some 'block' here, from my side, yours a combination, I do not know. If your question is why am I not calling for Kinnock's resignation as an MP, the answer is because I am not calling for DC's either.

Maybe you could answer my questions here PiD https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/view ... 05#p254805 ?

But there are rules and no one should be above the rules.

Therefore as I have already said on balance I think Cummings should have gone. Not sure I need to say anymore than that.

You on the other hand now seem to be saying that there are rules but as long as someone shows contrition (Aplogises) they can stay. At the moment what I am witnessing is Cummings had made a statement, he has stated that he made some errors but does not feel he should apologise and has given his reasons why. Of course some people will not like what he said and also feel somewhat aggrieved that he has not apologised. However; he has at least made a statement to explain his side of the story. Then on the other side we have 3 MPs who in my personal opinion travelled with less reason than Cummings, have not fully explained why they needed to travel, have not apologised, not been hounded by the press and it seems to me are effectively being ignored.

I am sorry Erol but I simply don’t believe that you would let this go if suddenly Cummings came out and said very sorry, completely my error and I will learn from it. We all know the man will be hounded even more. The problem I have and it could well be just me is that I find it difficult to follow your line of argument as each reply from yourself is usually fairly long, includes lots of quotes and throws in lots of other subject matter which clouds then issue. No idea why you just won’t use a single sentence to answer my questions.

I think this topic is fast becoming a scene from WW1 with both sides deeply entrenched, carrying out pointless skirmishes and little ground being gained. Perhaps it would take Cummings to be sacked or maybe an admission that rules are applicable to all before a pathway to victory could be found. Or maybe it just might be be we all agree that the press have acted shamefully in all of this. Who knows, but I’m off to join General Melchett for a glass of port.

[erol]

I have never heard of Tim Hunt or his case and you will have to forgive me if I am reluctant to go and spend time and energy researching it for your benefit

I can help you there. Here's a link, it's from The Guardian so it must be true.

Basically the pile on brigade have managed to get a great scientist the sack for making at worst a poor joke. He apologised countless times but the mob had the taste of blood in their mouths so his apology just spurred them on.
Several female scientists who had worked closely with him testified that he was in no way sexist and in fact had helped them beyond measure in an often male dominated field.
It's by no means the only example of this kind of thing but for me one of the saddest.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... he-country

The idea that the only way for DC to remain is for him and the government to deny he did anything wrong, is to me patent nonsense. What is more I sincerely believe it would have cost Johnson and this Government significantly less political capital keeping him place following some indication of contrition than it is costing by going down the 'he did nothing wrong' route. Which is some small 'silver lining' for me given my politics but one lined up against the very real and serious potential ongoing damage to the UK's efforts to deal with the virus such denial may lead to.

Not only do i think it is entirely within the realms of possibility, indeed a near certainty, that DC could have shown some contrition and still remained in his job, meaning less negative impact to the nation, I think it is naive to imagine that the 'nah he did nothing wrong guv, you are all mistaken' is not going to lead to even more attacks from those who are out to get him down the line vs if he had shown some contrition at all. From now on every time someone is caught breaking the rules and tries to use, successfully or not, the 'Cummings defence' , the hounds will be out again. Every time the police complain about trying to enforce the laws against such excuses , the hounds will be out again. To me it is clear that Cummings could have shown some contrition and kept his job and had he done so the political capital spent by Johnson and others to keep him in his job would have been lower, the damage to the nation would have been lower and the degree to which those out to get him were able to keep dragging the whole thing back up over and over would have been lower.

[erol]

But there are rules and no one should be above the rules.

I agree. I do not think anyone should be able to steal without sanction. I do however believe that the sanction should not be the same singular sanction for everyone who commits theft.

I am sorry Erol but I simply don’t believe that you would let this go if suddenly Cummings came out and said very sorry, completely my error and I will learn from it.

I just accept reality. I think he would keep his job whatever he did or did not do, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. Given who he is and his importance to Johnson, given the majority Johnson commands and the distance to the next scheduled GE I think this is patently clear. I find the notion that had he shown ANY contrition at all, that could only lead to him being sacked or resigning utter nonsense to be frank. As do I find the idea that 'denial' was the only to draw a line under this and stop the hounds. It will not achieve that, it will make it worse than if he has shown some contrition imo.

We all know the man will be hounded even more.

Yes he will be hounded, just as many many others are so hounded and have been throughout their political careers. From the right AND from the left. That is the way it works, the way it has always worked and I see little prospect of that changing. The idea that DC is an any way special or being treated differently in this regard is to me also utter nonsense.

The problem I have and it could well be just me is that I find it difficult to follow your line of argument as each reply from yourself is usually fairly long, includes lots of quotes and throws in lots of other subject matter which clouds then issue. No idea why you just won’t use a single sentence to answer my questions.

I just do the best I can. Do you think you have answered my question here https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/view ... 05#p254805 with single sentence answers ? Because if you have it does not feel that way to me.

[kerry 6138]

However; the above isn’t really that relevant as that was not my question. So maybe you could answer my question?

Well I feel I have tried to answer the question, multiple times. Clearly there is some 'block' here, from my side, yours a combination, I do not know. If your question is why am I not calling for Kinnock's resignation as an MP, the answer is because I am not calling for DC's either.

Maybe you could answer my questions here PiD https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/view ... 05#p254805 ?

But you did feel the need to find out the opinions of kibcom members with the poll on Cummins, did I miss the other miscreants polls or were they of no interest ?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

From the day after the Cummings tv interview.
Just to note that the Conservatives took 43.6% of the vote in the December election so their support is draining away due to their handling of the Coronavirus crisis and the Cummings affair. Obviously the bounce from replacing Corbyn is a factor too

[PoshinDevon]

But there are rules and no one should be above the rules.

I agree. I do not think anyone should be able to steal without sanction. I do however believe that the sanction should not be the same singular sanction for everyone who commits theft.

I am sorry Erol but I simply don’t believe that you would let this go if suddenly Cummings came out and said very sorry, completely my error and I will learn from it.

I just accept reality. I think he would keep his job whatever he did or did not do, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. Given who he is and his importance to Johnson, given the majority Johnson commands and the distance to the next scheduled GE I think this is patently clear. I find the notion that had he shown ANY contrition at all, that could only lead to him being sacked or resigning utter nonsense to be frank. As do I find the idea that 'denial' was the only to draw a line under this and stop the hounds. It will not achieve that, it will make it worse than if he has shown some contrition imo.

We all know the man will be hounded even more.

Yes he will be hounded, just as many many others are so hounded and have been throughout their political careers. From the right AND from the left. That is the way it works, the way it has always worked and I see little prospect of that changing. The idea that DC is an any way special or being treated differently in this regard is to me also utter nonsense.

The problem I have and it could well be just me is that I find it difficult to follow your line of argument as each reply from yourself is usually fairly long, includes lots of quotes and throws in lots of other subject matter which clouds then issue. No idea why you just won’t use a single sentence to answer my questions.

I just do the best I can. Do you think you have answered my question here https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/view ... 05#p254805 with single sentence answers ? Because if you have it does not feel that way to me.

Clearly it’s trench warfare and you are trying to wear me down. I have taken a very quick look at my posts on this topic and can see I have asked a number of questions which have not been answered. Some I have asked more than once. I won’t bother highlighting them as I know it’s a pointless exercise.

So for now I will stay in my bunker with General Melchett and Captain Darling enjoying a fine glass of port and a nice cigar whilst the troops at the front battle it out.