| Cummings 08:28 - May 23 with 90056 views | waynekerr55 |
Toast, surely? |  |
| |  |
| Cummings on 13:13 - Jun 2 with 1516 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 12:59 - Jun 2 by Catullus |
Oh get a grip mun, the police believe he probably did break the rules and said if they had caught him they would have turned him around and sent him back to London,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/28/durham-police-believe-cummings-
If they didn't think he was breaking rules why would they say they'd have sent him back?
What you also choose to ignore is that in being Bojo's main advisor (specially re the lockdown rules) Cummings is not an ordinary employee. If a manager in, lets say Royal Mail (where I used to work) set rules then broke them he would be disciplined.
In fact one manager who was supposed to be in the delivery office went to a pub in Port Tennant (Union Inn) to watch a World cup game (it was 2006 I think) where he caught a postman who'd gone to watch the same game. The following day he was threatening to have the postman sacked for being in the pub when he was supposed to be in work. The union stepped in with senior management and said fine but if he sacks the postie you have to sack the manager too, case dropped. In Cummings case he is more the manager than the employee and, as I have already said, other government bods who break the rules should be punished too, whichever party. I named Kinnock and Jenrick.
If I thought I had the virus, or my wife or son, I wouldn't get in the car and drive anywhere. I wouldn't leave the house and in any circumstances if I thought my eyesight was dodgy I absolutely would not put my family in the car and drive. |
From the article you linked;
’ His 260-mile journey to Durham on 27 March did not break health protection regulations, the report concluded’
From the same article;
’ the force released a report saying the prime minister’s special adviser “might have” breached health protection regulations when he embarked on a 52-mile round trip to the town of Barnard Castle with his wife and son on her birthday.’
Yet their headline and sub-heading...
’ Durham police believe Cummings probably did break lockdown rules.‘
‘Sources say force stopped short of definitive statement because cases not tested in courts.’
You, and all of their readers, are being led down the garden path.
Who are The Guardian’s “sources”?
The source behind their story on the 2nd trip has already admitted to lying and doctoring an app to fool people...but he was only “joking”.
Don’t be so naive. |  |
| |
| Cummings on 13:22 - Jun 2 with 1500 views | Catullus |
| Cummings on 13:13 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
From the article you linked;
’ His 260-mile journey to Durham on 27 March did not break health protection regulations, the report concluded’
From the same article;
’ the force released a report saying the prime minister’s special adviser “might have” breached health protection regulations when he embarked on a 52-mile round trip to the town of Barnard Castle with his wife and son on her birthday.’
Yet their headline and sub-heading...
’ Durham police believe Cummings probably did break lockdown rules.‘
‘Sources say force stopped short of definitive statement because cases not tested in courts.’
You, and all of their readers, are being led down the garden path.
Who are The Guardian’s “sources”?
The source behind their story on the 2nd trip has already admitted to lying and doctoring an app to fool people...but he was only “joking”.
Don’t be so naive. |
Your post said,
'Well the police say he didn't break the rules.
They say that at the worst they would have turned him around and sent him home on his trip to the castle'
Saying he might have broken the rules and if they'd caught him they'd have sent him back is lot different to saying he didn't break the rules.
I'm sure they also said they'd have told him to go home, in line with their instructions, and would only have taken it further if he didn't obey.
If you thought your eyesight was dodgy, would you put your family in a cat and take a 50 mile spin to test it? Utterly coincidental of course that it was his wife's birthday.
He's spun a story to fit the facts, it's his job, he's good at it but even so it sounded like so much BS and a better group of journo's would have ripped him apart. |  |
| |
| Cummings on 13:30 - Jun 2 with 1492 views | chad |
Yes i found it confusing because the Durham police report said ‘might’ as reported by the Guardian itself, but the Guardian headline said probably, which is totally misleading. And of course the home they might have sent him back to was Durham. As said there was no offence found in relation to the London / Durham journey.
In a new report, where the police investigation is now being challenged, the Guardian are actually saying the police said probably (as a link to their previous story). This is blatantly untrue. |  | | |
| Cummings on 13:33 - Jun 2 with 1488 views | vetchonian |
| Cummings on 13:22 - Jun 2 by Catullus |
Your post said,
'Well the police say he didn't break the rules.
They say that at the worst they would have turned him around and sent him home on his trip to the castle'
Saying he might have broken the rules and if they'd caught him they'd have sent him back is lot different to saying he didn't break the rules.
I'm sure they also said they'd have told him to go home, in line with their instructions, and would only have taken it further if he didn't obey.
If you thought your eyesight was dodgy, would you put your family in a cat and take a 50 mile spin to test it? Utterly coincidental of course that it was his wife's birthday.
He's spun a story to fit the facts, it's his job, he's good at it but even so it sounded like so much BS and a better group of journo's would have ripped him apart. |
Dont waste your time Cat.....this person has not the intelligence to grasp the real facts he only sees what fits in with his view or what his leaders say......deluded and like Bojo et al only believes they are right | |
| |
| Cummings on 13:33 - Jun 2 with 1488 views | Catullus |
| Cummings on 13:30 - Jun 2 by chad |
Yes i found it confusing because the Durham police report said ‘might’ as reported by the Guardian itself, but the Guardian headline said probably, which is totally misleading. And of course the home they might have sent him back to was Durham. As said there was no offence found in relation to the London / Durham journey.
In a new report, where the police investigation is now being challenged, the Guardian are actually saying the police said probably (as a link to their previous story). This is blatantly untrue. |
I have said this before but to me the Guardian is just the other side of the same coin as the daily Mail.
They're as bad as each other, they spin stories towards their political leaning. Maybe from now on I need to find a link to both of them, for balance?
Still though, might have and would have sent him home is a lot different to Kerouacs claim of exonneration. | |
| |
| Cummings on 13:50 - Jun 2 with 1474 views | vetchonian |
| Cummings on 13:33 - Jun 2 by Catullus |
I have said this before but to me the Guardian is just the other side of the same coin as the daily Mail.
They're as bad as each other, they spin stories towards their political leaning. Maybe from now on I need to find a link to both of them, for balance?
Still though, might have and would have sent him home is a lot different to Kerouacs claim of exonneration. |
Forgetting newspapers and their political leanings
lets reacquaint with what we were told on the night of March 23rd
Stay at home , do not travel unless it is essential
to work if you cannot work from home in fact as per this below
Mr Johnson said the country faced a "moment of national emergency" and staying at home was necessary to protect the NHS and save lives.
He said the restrictions would be in place for at least three weeks and would be kept under constant review.
The government guidance says people should only leave home for one of four reasons:
Shopping for basic necessities such as food and medicine. Shopping trips should be as infrequent as possible
One form of exercise a day such as a run, walk, or cycle. This should be done alone or only with people you live with
Any medical need, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person. This includes moving children under the age of 18 between their parents' homes, where applicable. Key workers or those with children identified as vulnerable can continue to take their children to school
Travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home
Even when following the above guidance, people should minimise the amount of time spent out of their homes and should keep two metres (6ft) away from people they do not live with.
see also https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52010555
I dont think even the best defence barrister would have been able to get Cummings off in a court of law when you read and "interpret" these rules which were set by the Government who he advises!
He was also putting the emergency services at risk of infection if in the event of him haivng an accident and the passengers needed rescue or treatment...knowingly travelling with an infected person?
There were numerous headlines regarding drivers being stopped and fined when they had supposedly travelled over 100 miles to buy bread!
Forget the newspaers just look at what BOjo told us!! Cummings was in the wrong..it is criminal the government gave him air time to spin those lies and then he treated everyone with contempt in turning up late and spinning another load of crap....not even an apology maybe if he had gone """im sorry for being late and I am very sorry that I disobeyed the rules everyone else has been observing hard though they are but this is my justification.....NO he beleives he has no on e to answer too!!!
That is the bottom line | |
| |
| Cummings on 13:55 - Jun 2 with 1469 views | Catullus |
| Cummings on 13:50 - Jun 2 by vetchonian |
Forgetting newspapers and their political leanings
lets reacquaint with what we were told on the night of March 23rd
Stay at home , do not travel unless it is essential
to work if you cannot work from home in fact as per this below
Mr Johnson said the country faced a "moment of national emergency" and staying at home was necessary to protect the NHS and save lives.
He said the restrictions would be in place for at least three weeks and would be kept under constant review.
The government guidance says people should only leave home for one of four reasons:
Shopping for basic necessities such as food and medicine. Shopping trips should be as infrequent as possible
One form of exercise a day such as a run, walk, or cycle. This should be done alone or only with people you live with
Any medical need, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person. This includes moving children under the age of 18 between their parents' homes, where applicable. Key workers or those with children identified as vulnerable can continue to take their children to school
Travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home
Even when following the above guidance, people should minimise the amount of time spent out of their homes and should keep two metres (6ft) away from people they do not live with.
see also https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52010555
I dont think even the best defence barrister would have been able to get Cummings off in a court of law when you read and "interpret" these rules which were set by the Government who he advises!
He was also putting the emergency services at risk of infection if in the event of him haivng an accident and the passengers needed rescue or treatment...knowingly travelling with an infected person?
There were numerous headlines regarding drivers being stopped and fined when they had supposedly travelled over 100 miles to buy bread!
Forget the newspaers just look at what BOjo told us!! Cummings was in the wrong..it is criminal the government gave him air time to spin those lies and then he treated everyone with contempt in turning up late and spinning another load of crap....not even an apology maybe if he had gone """im sorry for being late and I am very sorry that I disobeyed the rules everyone else has been observing hard though they are but this is my justification.....NO he beleives he has no on e to answer too!!!
That is the bottom line |
That is the bottom line, you're right.
Bojo and Cummings treated us like mugs and they expect us to behave like mugs and 'move on' which isn't going to happen. | |
| |
| Cummings on 17:55 - Jun 2 with 1392 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 13:33 - Jun 2 by Catullus |
I have said this before but to me the Guardian is just the other side of the same coin as the daily Mail.
They're as bad as each other, they spin stories towards their political leaning. Maybe from now on I need to find a link to both of them, for balance?
Still though, might have and would have sent him home is a lot different to Kerouacs claim of exonneration. |
The police have exonerated him.
Not that this seems to matter to the mob 😆 | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cummings on 18:04 - Jun 2 with 1372 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 13:30 - Jun 2 by chad |
Yes i found it confusing because the Durham police report said ‘might’ as reported by the Guardian itself, but the Guardian headline said probably, which is totally misleading. And of course the home they might have sent him back to was Durham. As said there was no offence found in relation to the London / Durham journey.
In a new report, where the police investigation is now being challenged, the Guardian are actually saying the police said probably (as a link to their previous story). This is blatantly untrue. |
The police can only ever say ‘might’ have broken the law because the aren’t the arbiters of that in this country - a court is.
The police believe he did break the law which is why they said that they’d have turned him round. The only powers they have to do that is in the event they believe someone is in breach of the law.
The wording was explained in detail by lawyers after the police issued their statement. | | | |
| Cummings on 18:06 - Jun 2 with 1367 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 17:55 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
The police have exonerated him.
Not that this seems to matter to the mob 😆 |
The police said they believed he had broken the law in their opinion. You referred to it yourself by saying they’d have turned him round - the only power they have to do that is because they believe someone in breach.
He also probably broke the law by going back to work when he had reason to believe that he’d been in contact with someone who was infected. But that’s a matter for the Met Police not the Durham police. | | | |
| Cummings on 18:08 - Jun 2 with 1367 views | Highjack |
| Cummings on 18:06 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
The police said they believed he had broken the law in their opinion. You referred to it yourself by saying they’d have turned him round - the only power they have to do that is because they believe someone in breach.
He also probably broke the law by going back to work when he had reason to believe that he’d been in contact with someone who was infected. But that’s a matter for the Met Police not the Durham police. |
And he broke all sorts of motoring regulations by driving whilst blind. |  |
| |
| Cummings on 18:28 - Jun 2 with 1349 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 18:04 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
The police can only ever say ‘might’ have broken the law because the aren’t the arbiters of that in this country - a court is.
The police believe he did break the law which is why they said that they’d have turned him round. The only powers they have to do that is in the event they believe someone is in breach of the law.
The wording was explained in detail by lawyers after the police issued their statement. |
...from Fact check website;
The law vs. the guidance
As we’ve already said, the law covering travel during lockdown and the government guidance are not the same thing.
The primary law that applies to travel outside the home in England during the lockdown period is the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, and particularly section 6. These regulations came into force on 26 March, the day before Mr Cummings says he made the journey to Durham.
Section 6 of the regulations said at the time that “During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.”
It then lists a number of things that would count as “reasonable excuses”. The only one that could apply in Mr. Cummings’s case is “to move house where reasonably necessary”. This may simply refer to a permanent change of residence (the common use of “moving house”), but the CPS guidance published by the NPCC in April suggests it could also be interpreted as allowing temporary relocations for a period of days, for example “to allow a ‘cooling-off’ following arguments at home”. The CPS guidance does not specifically mention childcare.
The list is also not exhaustive, so it is possible for someone to have a reasonable excuse that is not listed.
This leaves the question of what counts as a “reasonable excuse”, or a “reasonably necessary” house move, somewhat ambiguous. Ultimately, it would be up to a court to decide whether an individual excuse was a reasonable one. (This could be tested if an individual chose to contest a fixed penalty notice that they were issued under the regulations.)
The government guidance around the lockdown is more extensive than the law (and in some cases, more restrictive). It’s possible that a court might take this guidance into account when deciding what counted as reasonable, but the guidance itself does not form part of the law.
So there you have it.
If they attempted to prosecute him for the trip to the castle they rightly assessed that he would challenge it and probably win in court.
So they didn’t.
The law was deliberately crafted to be ambiguous because it was never meant to clog up the courts but was instead intended for the police to have the power to turn somebody around and send them home if an officer deemed their behaviour a risk.
It wasn’t meant to clog up the courts because most serious people have rather more pressing matters to deal with right now than petty political squabbles waged by disingenuous, embittered, simpletons. [Post edited 2 Jun 2020 18:31]
| |
| |
| Cummings on 18:35 - Jun 2 with 1337 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Cummings on 18:08 - Jun 2 by Highjack |
And he broke all sorts of motoring regulations by driving whilst blind. |
He broke the law |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Cummings on 18:36 - Jun 2 with 1338 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 18:06 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
The police said they believed he had broken the law in their opinion. You referred to it yourself by saying they’d have turned him round - the only power they have to do that is because they believe someone in breach.
He also probably broke the law by going back to work when he had reason to believe that he’d been in contact with someone who was infected. But that’s a matter for the Met Police not the Durham police. |
...also from Fact Check website;
Returning to work after visiting his ill wife at home
According to his public statement on Monday 25 May, while he was at work on 27 March, Mr Cummings received a call from his wife. “She suddenly felt badly ill,” he said. “She had vomited and felt like she might pass out.” He reported going straight home to visit her, then returning to work in the afternoon after she was feeling better.
Mr Cummings did not say whether he suspected that his wife was ill with Covid-19 during this visit home. At the time, the guidelines said that, “The most common symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19) are recent onset of: new continuous cough and/or high temperature”. They did not mention vomiting.
Guidance from Public Health England said that if someone in a household has coronavirus symptoms, “all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill”. It adds, “You and all household members should remain at home. Do not go to work.”
That evening, after Mr Cummings had returned home from work again, he says that he discussed the situation with his wife. “She might have Covid, though she did not have a cough or a fever,” he said in his statement. “I thought there was a distinct probability that I had already caught the disease.”
So, no. | |
| |
| Cummings on 18:38 - Jun 2 with 1335 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 18:08 - Jun 2 by Highjack |
And he broke all sorts of motoring regulations by driving whilst blind. |
It’s a wonder he didn’t crash. 😂 | |
| |
| Cummings on 18:58 - Jun 2 with 1320 views | vetchonian |
| Cummings on 18:28 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
...from Fact check website;
The law vs. the guidance
As we’ve already said, the law covering travel during lockdown and the government guidance are not the same thing.
The primary law that applies to travel outside the home in England during the lockdown period is the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, and particularly section 6. These regulations came into force on 26 March, the day before Mr Cummings says he made the journey to Durham.
Section 6 of the regulations said at the time that “During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.”
It then lists a number of things that would count as “reasonable excuses”. The only one that could apply in Mr. Cummings’s case is “to move house where reasonably necessary”. This may simply refer to a permanent change of residence (the common use of “moving house”), but the CPS guidance published by the NPCC in April suggests it could also be interpreted as allowing temporary relocations for a period of days, for example “to allow a ‘cooling-off’ following arguments at home”. The CPS guidance does not specifically mention childcare.
The list is also not exhaustive, so it is possible for someone to have a reasonable excuse that is not listed.
This leaves the question of what counts as a “reasonable excuse”, or a “reasonably necessary” house move, somewhat ambiguous. Ultimately, it would be up to a court to decide whether an individual excuse was a reasonable one. (This could be tested if an individual chose to contest a fixed penalty notice that they were issued under the regulations.)
The government guidance around the lockdown is more extensive than the law (and in some cases, more restrictive). It’s possible that a court might take this guidance into account when deciding what counted as reasonable, but the guidance itself does not form part of the law.
So there you have it.
If they attempted to prosecute him for the trip to the castle they rightly assessed that he would challenge it and probably win in court.
So they didn’t.
The law was deliberately crafted to be ambiguous because it was never meant to clog up the courts but was instead intended for the police to have the power to turn somebody around and send them home if an officer deemed their behaviour a risk.
It wasn’t meant to clog up the courts because most serious people have rather more pressing matters to deal with right now than petty political squabbles waged by disingenuous, embittered, simpletons. [Post edited 2 Jun 2020 18:31]
|
So which one of these 4 valid reasons as stated by Cummins puppet justified the trip to Castle Barnard?
The government guidance says people should only leave home for one of four reasons:Â
Shopping for basic necessities such as food and medicine. Shopping trips should be as infrequent as possibleÂ
One form of exercise a day such as a run, walk, or cycle. This should be done alone or only with people you live withÂ
Any medical need, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person. This includes moving children under the age of 18 between their parents' homes, where applicable. Key workers or those with children identified as vulnerable can continue to take their children to schoolÂ
Travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from homeÂ
And this test eyesight yarn is a case of breaking the law..on your driving test the first thing the examiner does is to get you to read a number plate on a car a certain distance away if you xant read it you dont get in the car you fail your test... | |
| |
| Cummings on 19:10 - Jun 2 with 1308 views | Nortbankboy |
| Cummings on 17:55 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
The police have exonerated him.
Not that this seems to matter to the mob 😆 |
The police falling in with the government's version,shock | | | |
| Cummings on 19:39 - Jun 2 with 1287 views | exiledclaseboy |
Remember when Kerouac used to pretend to be a LibDem? Best forum wind up ever.  |  |
| |
| Cummings on 19:55 - Jun 2 with 1266 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 19:39 - Jun 2 by exiledclaseboy |
Remember when Kerouac used to pretend to be a LibDem? Best forum wind up ever. |
Apparently a belief in the rule of law and a disgust for witch hunts excludes you from the left these days.
Why don’t you do something more productive, like explaining the Soviet Union to Ebo. | |
| |
| Cummings on 20:02 - Jun 2 with 1258 views | Highjack |
| Cummings on 18:38 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
It’s a wonder he didn’t crash. 😂 |
How do we know he didn’t? | |
| |
| Cummings on 20:17 - Jun 2 with 1245 views | waynekerr55 |
| Cummings on 18:04 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
The police can only ever say ‘might’ have broken the law because the aren’t the arbiters of that in this country - a court is.
The police believe he did break the law which is why they said that they’d have turned him round. The only powers they have to do that is in the event they believe someone is in breach of the law.
The wording was explained in detail by lawyers after the police issued their statement. |
Correct.
People need to read the Secret Barrister's book, or listen when SirJonalot posts | |
| |
| Cummings on 20:37 - Jun 2 with 1233 views | WarwickHunt |
Yeah. - but in his defence he’s a fûcking Martian... |  | | |
| Cummings on 20:47 - Jun 2 with 1218 views | legoman |
In my opinion whether Cummings broke the law or not is irrelevant. Given his position in government and the seriousness of the situation he must surely have realised how his actions were going to look to the British public. The fact that he went ahead anyway speaks volumes.
He has cocked a snook at the people of this country and has acted recklessly and with complete disregard for his actions. He comes across as arrogant beyond belief.
I don't understand how anyone can argue against that. He above all should know how to behave. |  |
| "M'sieur, you said your dog did not bite!"
"That's not my dog" |
| |
| Cummings on 20:47 - Jun 2 with 1218 views | LeonWasGod |
| Cummings on 18:36 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
...also from Fact Check website;
Returning to work after visiting his ill wife at home
According to his public statement on Monday 25 May, while he was at work on 27 March, Mr Cummings received a call from his wife. “She suddenly felt badly ill,” he said. “She had vomited and felt like she might pass out.” He reported going straight home to visit her, then returning to work in the afternoon after she was feeling better.
Mr Cummings did not say whether he suspected that his wife was ill with Covid-19 during this visit home. At the time, the guidelines said that, “The most common symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19) are recent onset of: new continuous cough and/or high temperature”. They did not mention vomiting.
Guidance from Public Health England said that if someone in a household has coronavirus symptoms, “all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill”. It adds, “You and all household members should remain at home. Do not go to work.”
That evening, after Mr Cummings had returned home from work again, he says that he discussed the situation with his wife. “She might have Covid, though she did not have a cough or a fever,” he said in his statement. “I thought there was a distinct probability that I had already caught the disease.”
So, no. |
How you manage to cut and paste reams of information and then fail to understand any of it is one of the unknown mysteries on this site. |  | | |
| Cummings on 20:49 - Jun 2 with 1214 views | LeonWasGod |
| Cummings on 20:47 - Jun 2 by legoman |
In my opinion whether Cummings broke the law or not is irrelevant. Given his position in government and the seriousness of the situation he must surely have realised how his actions were going to look to the British public. The fact that he went ahead anyway speaks volumes.
He has cocked a snook at the people of this country and has acted recklessly and with complete disregard for his actions. He comes across as arrogant beyond belief.
I don't understand how anyone can argue against that. He above all should know how to behave. |
It more the post-event activites that show we're fecked with this lot in charge, imo. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
