Re: Poll - did Cummings break the rules ?
Posted: Mon 25 May 2020 2:45 pm
I believe Cummings was tasked with procuring the hindsight that Johnson needed to respond effectively to the crisis.
The most active English Speaking Expat forum for North Cyprus
https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/
https://kibkomnorthcyprusforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=51426
I believe Cummings was tasked with procuring the hindsight that Johnson needed to respond effectively to the crisis.
I honestly doubt it will make any difference whatsoever.... just long as you get your man. But then that's been your entire purpose in starting this pointless thread... when you change tack from statements of fact and start hypothesising that 'he must' then your argument is lost in its mendacious intent.erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 2:13 pmDo you honestly and seriously doubt that what DC did and how Johnson has reacted to it to date will have real and material consequences in terms of how many people continue to follow government guidelines going forward or not ?EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 1:57 pmErol, will a confession be enough or does he need to name other conspirators as well?
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/m ... -the-ussr/
Do you accept that several of the government own experts who specialise in behaviour have said they think there will be an impact in terms of how likely the public is to follow future government guidelines ?
This is just absolute nonsense. Forget that you are claiming to know my intent better than I do. Forget that your are essentially calling me a liar. Are you seriously suggesting that I think anything I do here could or would affect what does or does not happen to Cummings ? It is as far as I am concerned beyond absurd. The reason why I started the poll was I was genuinely curious as to what other poster here thought. I then having created the poll reacted to others comments with my own personal views and opinions.
For FWIW having watched the press conference my personal first thoughts are that it was massively better than Johnson's attempt to deal with the issue last night, that essentially was 'I have heard in detail what he had to say on the issue, I have judged it reasonable and you lot do not need to know any more than that'. Better in terms of damage to the government and better in terms of damage to the nation re people just ignoring any future guidance to an extent not seen before this all kicked off.Dalartokat wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 4:49 pmDominic Cummings has just made a speech giving his version of events and is now answering questions from the media.
So all will be dysected again.
erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 5:28 pm
This is just absolute nonsense. Forget that you are claiming to know my intent better than I do. Forget that your are essentially calling me a liar. Are you seriously suggesting that I think anything I do here could or would affect what does or does not happen to Cummings ? It is as far as I am concerned beyond absurd. The reason why I started the poll was I was genuinely curious as to what other poster here thought. I then having created the poll reacted to others comments with my own personal views and opinions.
erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 10:16 amOf course there is an element of that. The difference is I do not deny this and seek to make out that only other people do this and not myself.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 10:09 am
A cynic might also think that your polls are extremely selective and choreographed with a pile on the suits your personal political agenda.
Hardly working class, the property he drove to had at least three detached houses on it and acres of woods where he was spotted walking about. He obviously doesn't have much respect for people in and around Durham as he allegedly went for a test drive locally to see if a visual impairment, caused by his illness, would stand a trip back to London. He took his wife and child too so that they might all go out in a blaze of glory together, Prat!EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 6:54 amI do have a theory that the upper middle class Marxists of Islington just can’t get their heads around anyone leaving their little bubble to go to Durham where working class people live. “Ugh why would one want to go there, we already own their vote. Get your Palestinian flag and start campaigning in Hampstead, lovely places to get a Cappuccino there.”
I didn't say he was working class I said Durham was working class.frontalman wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 6:35 pm
Hardly working class, the property he drove to had at least three detached houses on it and acres of woods where he was spotted walking about.
I create threads on things that interest me and reflect my personal biases. Is that not what everyone does ? It was not my intent in creating a thread on this topic to seek to change any outcomes as to what happened to DC. The very notion is absurd. Not only was it not my entire intent it was not my intent at all. I started this thread knowing with absolute certainty and without even having to think about it that it would not and could not affect the outcome re DC. Groucho alleges that when I stared claiming DC 'must go' is the point when it became clear to him how mendacious my intent in starting the thread was. So show me where I actually do this. Where I say 'he must' go ? If you or he can not show this will there be any public apology ? I think there is as much chance of that as this thread affecting outcomes for DC.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 5:56 pmerol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 5:28 pm
This is just absolute nonsense. Forget that you are claiming to know my intent better than I do. Forget that your are essentially calling me a liar. Are you seriously suggesting that I think anything I do here could or would affect what does or does not happen to Cummings ? It is as far as I am concerned beyond absurd. The reason why I started the poll was I was genuinely curious as to what other poster here thought. I then having created the poll reacted to others comments with my own personal views and opinions.
erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 10:16 amOf course there is an element of that. The difference is I do not deny this and seek to make out that only other people do this and not myself.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 10:09 am
A cynic might also think that your polls are extremely selective and choreographed with a pile on the suits your personal political agenda.
I paraphrased your statement:-erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 5:28 pmDo you accept that several of the government own experts who specialise in behaviour have said they think there will be an impact in terms of how likely the public is to follow future government guidelines ?
This is just absolute nonsense. Forget that you are claiming to know my intent better than I do. Forget that your are essentially calling me a liar. Are you seriously suggesting that I think anything I do here could or would affect what does or does not happen to Cummings ? It is as far as I am concerned beyond absurd. The reason why I started the poll was I was genuinely curious as to what other poster here thought. I then having created the poll reacted to others comments with my own personal views and opinions.
As far as mendacious intent goes - did I even use the word 'must' any where in this thread ?
As evidenced by them packing together like sardinesPoshinDevon wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 8:32 pmIts the hypocrisy of the media that is a concern for me.
I have no idea what you are on about. You are claiming I said 'he must' what ? He must 'go' ? He must have been involved in formulating policy ? What ? Why not just say what you mean clearly ? Why not quote me rather than paraphrase me ? You accused me of mendacious intent. So spell it out for me please because I have no idea what you are on about.Groucho wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 8:21 pmas 'he must' (in single quotes as distinct from double quotes as it was intended as a precis ) for the sake of brevity, although you qualify your statement with " if it were true than he played no part in formulating the rules" so rather undermining your contention that "seriously suggesting that it is any where near reasonable doubt"
Yeah cause only the left wing do this. Sounds like 'Left bad everything else good' non argument to me.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 8:53 pmI think it’s a mixture of the usual left wing pile .....
Pop onto Twitter and catch the left rent a gobs such as James O'Brien and you'll see that they have been tweeting or retweeting every 5 minutes for the last 2 days solid about this. For what is pretty much a non story. I doubt they would have given as much ink to 9/11. Actually bad example, they probably just dropped in a quick 'America had it coming' and left it at that.
You know jolly well that you were in so many words, and I mean in SO MANY WORDS stating that 'he' being Dominic Cummings 'must' being 'was the driving force' behind the lockdown rules. You are now trying to wriggle off the hook because you clearly overplayed your hand. You were making statements you expected to go unchallenged to further your political philosophy in an attempt to carry others along with you.erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 9:24 pmI have no idea what you are on about. You are claiming I said 'he must' what ? He must 'go' ? He must have been involved in formulating policy ? What ? Why not just say what you mean clearly ? Why not quote me rather than paraphrase me ? You accused me of mendacious intent. So spell it out for me please because I have no idea what you are on about.Groucho wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 8:21 pmas 'he must' (in single quotes as distinct from double quotes as it was intended as a precis ) for the sake of brevity, although you qualify your statement with " if it were true than he played no part in formulating the rules" so rather undermining your contention that "seriously suggesting that it is any where near reasonable doubt"
Well he isn't and the place he visited isn't. Westminster is working class too, so is Islington.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 6:57 pmI didn't say he was working class I said Durham was working class.frontalman wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 6:35 pm
Hardly working class, the property he drove to had at least three detached houses on it and acres of woods where he was spotted walking about.
Once more you tell ME what I know and call me a liar. I did NOT know what you were on about, so I asked.Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 4:53 amYou know jolly well that you were in so many words, and I mean in SO MANY WORDS stating that 'he' being Dominic Cummings 'must' being 'was the driving force' behind the lockdown rules. You are now trying to wriggle off the hook because you clearly overplayed your hand. You were making statements you expected to go unchallenged to further your political philosophy in an attempt to carry others along with you.erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 9:24 pmI have no idea what you are on about. You are claiming I said 'he must' what ? He must 'go' ? He must have been involved in formulating policy ? What ? Why not just say what you mean clearly ? Why not quote me rather than paraphrase me ? You accused me of mendacious intent. So spell it out for me please because I have no idea what you are on about.Groucho wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 8:21 pmas 'he must' (in single quotes as distinct from double quotes as it was intended as a precis ) for the sake of brevity, although you qualify your statement with " if it were true than he played no part in formulating the rules" so rather undermining your contention that "seriously suggesting that it is any where near reasonable doubt"
Will you ever answer the question I DID ask - does it matter more if someone, anyone, who IS instrumental in making the rules breaks them than someone who had nothing to do with making them breaks then ? Of course you will not answer this question. You will just mendaciously avoid answering that simple question and continue to make ad hominem attack instead.google wrote:What does instrumental mean? : very important in helping or causing something to happen or be done.
You identify a 'problem'. People just knee jerk supporting everything or anything not on the merits of the actual thing but based on simplistic 'x,y,z good, everything else bad' dogma.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 11:23 pmPop onto Twitter and catch the left rent a gobs such as James O'Brien and you'll see that they have been tweeting or retweeting every 5 minutes for the last 2 days solid about this. For what is pretty much a non story. I doubt they would have given as much ink to 9/11. Actually bad example, they probably just dropped in a quick 'America had it coming' and left it at that.
And then right on cue up pops an Erol poll. Was there a Guardian competition today? A pound to enter obviously.
I wonder if as many people are influenced to break the lockdown rules by Cummings as we're encouraged to drink bleach by Trump 's press conference? You could amalgamate both your polls! In future could you include an I don't give a toss option? I think you'll be surprised by how popular that might be.
Personally I could take or leave Trump and Johnson and simply thought they were both the best of a bad choice but over the last year I've learnt to love them because of the left's reaction to them.
I love how they are consistently labelled fascists by people who couldn't tell the difference between The National Front and The National Trust.
So why are you even posting in this thread if it is a 'non story' and if you and everyone else do not give a toss. Your actions do not match your claims as far as I can see. He doth protest too much methinks.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 9:00 am36 people voted, no one really gives a toss it’s a non story.
Yeah because it is beyond all possibility or belief that I actually just wanted to see what other people here thought on the issue. Occam's razor.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 9:00 amReal story is you wanted to start a pile on or at least bathe in one for a while. You got called on it and are sulking because you feel under attack which is actually extremely ironic.
No doubt another thing your insightful world view tells you only the 'left' do even as you sit there doing it yourself.websters dictionary wrote:Definition of ad hominem - 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
For me the story is the organised and concerted attack on Cummings and why.
From 2015 to 2017 Momentum and other left activists very astutely worked out that social media was overtaking papers and television in influencing people. So they dominated the social media with faux outrage, manufactured pile ons, carefully created stunts with activist plants, character assassinations where the message can’t be debunked so the messenger is nullified etc etc.erol wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 9:14 am
I feel under attack because I AM being attacked.
No doubt another thing your insightful world view tells you only the 'left' do even as you sit there doing it yourself.websters dictionary wrote:Definition of ad hominem - 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
That does not explain the numbers seen in polls like this and elsewhere that you continue to ignore. Significant numbers of people who are not anti brexit, anti Tory, anti Cummings think he broke the rules. So unless you are arguing that these people are too stupid to think for themselves all I see you doing is trying to distract from this reality because your dogma does not like it when your side is caught with their hand in the cookie jar.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 9:35 amFor me the story is the organised and concerted attack on Cummings and why.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 9:54 amUnless you think it is all random? As well as confirming the content, have a look at the times
8D26162B-CB31-4847-ABFE-86E4E47E2EC5.jpeg
Is that maybe, just maybe the way loaded questions... a favourite trick of yours I might add, elicit the response you crave?erol wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 10:45 amThat does not explain the numbers seen in polls like this and elsewhere that you continue to ignore. Significant numbers of people who are not anti brexit, anti Tory, anti Cummings think he broke the rules. So unless you are arguing that these people are too stupid to think for themselves all I see you doing is trying to distract from this reality because your dogma does not like it when your side is caught with their hand in the cookie jar.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 9:35 amFor me the story is the organised and concerted attack on Cummings and why.
Again please be clear what you are saying. Are you claiming the poll question was loaded ? Are you claiming that you do not think there is an underlying reality that a majority think he broke the rules, either in spirit or in fact and the poll just looks that way because I with intent loaded the question to get the answer I wanted ? Is that what you are now claiming ? If not then please do let me know what it is you are now claiming ?Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 11:14 amIs that maybe, just maybe the way loaded questions... a favourite trick of yours I might add, elicit the response you crave?erol wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 10:45 amThat does not explain the numbers seen in polls like this and elsewhere that you continue to ignore. Significant numbers of people who are not anti brexit, anti Tory, anti Cummings think he broke the rules. So unless you are arguing that these people are too stupid to think for themselves all I see you doing is trying to distract from this reality because your dogma does not like it when your side is caught with their hand in the cookie jar.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 9:35 amFor me the story is the organised and concerted attack on Cummings and why.
It's a loaded question because you posit within the foregoing text the notion that DC was the architect of the rules... leading to an objection, leading question by the prosecution, objection upheld please rephrase your question by any reasonable judge....erol wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 8:04 amOnce more you tell ME what I know and call me a liar. I did NOT know what you were on about, so I asked.Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 4:53 amYou know jolly well that you were in so many words, and I mean in SO MANY WORDS stating that 'he' being Dominic Cummings 'must' being 'was the driving force' behind the lockdown rules. You are now trying to wriggle off the hook because you clearly overplayed your hand. You were making statements you expected to go unchallenged to further your political philosophy in an attempt to carry others along with you.erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 9:24 pm
I have no idea what you are on about. You are claiming I said 'he must' what ? He must 'go' ? He must have been involved in formulating policy ? What ? Why not just say what you mean clearly ? Why not quote me rather than paraphrase me ? You accused me of mendacious intent. So spell it out for me please because I have no idea what you are on about.
Now let's get back to reality and facts shall we ?
I asked if it made a difference if someone breaking the rules was instrumental in making them or not. You ignore that generic question entirely and say is it 'fact or assumption' that DC was instrumental in formulating the rules'. Yes it is fact that he Its was instrumental in making the rules. I think no normal person would doubt he was instrumental. What is more he said he was himself in the interview.
Will you ever answer the question I DID ask - does it matter more if someone, anyone, who IS instrumental in making the rules breaks them than someone who had nothing to do with making them breaks then ? Of course you will not answer this question. You will just mendaciously avoid answering that simple question and continue to make ad hominem attack instead.google wrote:What does instrumental mean? : very important in helping or causing something to happen or be done.
You are also entirely inconsistent and hypocritical. Elsewhere ETS say's he 'understand Cummings wasn’t in favour of the lockdown'. No questioning from you as to if this is 'assumption of fact'. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Yet Cummings himself said explicitly in the interview he was in favour of lockdown and argued for it. I suggest indirectly that he was instrumental in formulating the rules and you flip you lid. See the difference ?
You continue to use and attribute to me terms I have not ever used like 'architect' and 'driving force' and even 'must'. The term I used was 'influential' and I even gave a google definition of that word that was the context in which I used it. You do all this whilst accusing ME of 'loading'. And whilst avoiding the plain and simple and clear point that I was making originally - it is worse if someone involved in making rules breaks them than if someone not involved does so.
Have I ever said I was the boss of you ? Maybe just maybe you feel like you might be being perceived as being in a 'bad light' because of the things you have done and said as much as or more than anything I have done or said ?
The motivation for creating the poll may be political, that is not the same things as the poll results being so. All you appear to be saying as I understand it is all those who are not anti brexit, anti tory, anti DC and have expressed the opinion that he did break the rules, are sheep unable to think for themselves and see through either my nefarious intent and shepherding or that of the left wing media's attempts (but never the right wings) but you are not. You are smarter. It is an argument of sorts. Just not one I personally find very compelling.
For someone who accuses people of telling you what you think/mean it's a bit rich for you to jump to the conclusion that my not taking ETS to task over a statement he's made by implication must mean I hold that view.... I demand an apology.erol wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 8:04 amOnce more you tell ME what I know and call me a liar. I did NOT know what you were on about, so I asked.Groucho wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 4:53 amYou know jolly well that you were in so many words, and I mean in SO MANY WORDS stating that 'he' being Dominic Cummings 'must' being 'was the driving force' behind the lockdown rules. You are now trying to wriggle off the hook because you clearly overplayed your hand. You were making statements you expected to go unchallenged to further your political philosophy in an attempt to carry others along with you.erol wrote: ↑Mon 25 May 2020 9:24 pm
I have no idea what you are on about. You are claiming I said 'he must' what ? He must 'go' ? He must have been involved in formulating policy ? What ? Why not just say what you mean clearly ? Why not quote me rather than paraphrase me ? You accused me of mendacious intent. So spell it out for me please because I have no idea what you are on about.
Now let's get back to reality and facts shall we ?
I asked if it made a difference if someone breaking the rules was instrumental in making them or not. You ignore that generic question entirely and say is it 'fact or assumption' that DC was instrumental in formulating the rules'. Yes it is fact that he was instrumental in making the rules. I think no normal person would doubt he was instrumental. What is more he said he was himself in the interview.
Will you ever answer the question I DID ask - does it matter more if someone, anyone, who IS instrumental in making the rules breaks them than someone who had nothing to do with making them breaks then ? Of course you will not answer this question. You will just mendaciously avoid answering that simple question and continue to make ad hominem attack instead.google wrote:What does instrumental mean? : very important in helping or causing something to happen or be done.
You are also entirely inconsistent and hypocritical. Elsewhere ETS say's he 'understand Cummings wasn’t in favour of the lockdown'. No questioning from you as to if this is 'assumption of fact'. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Yet Cummings himself said explicitly in the interview he was in favour of lockdown and argued for it. I suggest indirectly that he was instrumental in formulating the rules and you flip you lid. See the difference ?
I am sorry if you think that I was saying you hold the same view as ETS on this. I was not saying that at all.
So to be clear, you have never been in a position when your boss has made a decision that you totally disagree with but then had to defend that decision to a customer as if you agree with it? To present a united front?
I agree they are 'non stories'. I just point out that it was YOU raising them in what appears to me as an attempt to divert from the thing that patently IS a story. Namely someone involved in making government rules being widely perceived to have broken them.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 12:43 pmSo one side attacks and the other side defends, the elite are hypocritical etc etc. All these things are non stories.
So the Cummings thing is the biggest story of our age and he must be removed? Would a sacking or resignation be enough as it will achieve what the media and his opponents crave or do we need some sort of custodial sentence? Life?
I have been in such a position though I think on any comparative scale I do not defend such things with any more vigour than average. The point is here that DC did not appear to me to reluctantly support a decision he did not really believe in. He explicitly went out of his way to make clear that he personally supported lock down and early lock down, quoted evidence for this in his pre covid writings about the dangers of novel virus pandemics and explicitly bemoaned false press reporting that said otherwise. Maybe that was all totally in sincere but personally lack of sincere is not an accusation I would level against him. There are plenty of accusations I would level against him but not in sincerity or timidity to say what he really thought because his boss thinks otherwise on any relative scale. What I see here is you 'choosing' what you would like to believ, constructing a narrative that supports that and ignoring the actual know facts.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 12:51 pmSo to be clear, you have never been in a position when your boss has made a decision that you totally disagree with but then had to defend that decision to a customer as if you agree with it? To present a united front?
I'm pretty principled and don't count myself as a hypocrite but I've been in that position dozens of times. You know doubt are so principled and with your 20/20 hindsight know that his decision is wrong that you immediately resign on the spot?
I think in an environment where an individual does in fact systematically and consistently behave better than some others in a range of ways it is inevitable that those who do not act as well and that also consistently accuse others of acting badly, will end accusing the person of 'giving sermons' or being 'holier than thou' in direct relation to the degree to which the person defends and illustrates how they themselves have in fact not acted as badly as the person making the accusations.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 12:51 pmErol, I think posting on this forum is holding you back I think you would be better giving sermons from a mount.
Back to classic straw man arguing as far as I am concerned.EnjoyingTheSun wrote: ↑Tue 26 May 2020 12:59 pmSo the Cummings thing is the biggest story of our age and he must be removed? Would a sacking or resignation be enough as it will achieve what the media and his opponents crave or do we need some sort of custodial sentence? Life?
I know you don't like people going to prison for long but he might have killed millions.
Yep think you are on message well done.
BTW and for the record I do not personally use twitter, I do not read twitter feeds and I only know what goes on there when it is reported outside of twitter. I make these personal choices because I think twitter is net damaging to society and diminishes our collective ability to think clearly and properly. I try and be the change I want to see and certainty the change I might bang on about insistently in others.