| Cummings 08:28 - May 23 with 90052 views | waynekerr55 |
Toast, surely? |  |
| |  |
| Cummings on 22:02 - Jun 2 with 1435 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 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]
|
You’ve quite literally quoted the law that he broke. Which is helpful.
Going on a jolly to Barnard Castle wasn’t a reasonable excuse.
They would have won in court. The reason they didn’t is because they haven’t retrospectively taken action against others.
Ironically they have prosecuted others for the same trip as he made from London.
He didn’t have a reasonable excuse. It is not exceptional for one adult to have the virus while having a child. Every parent who’s had it is in the same position.
I can’t be bothered. If you can’t see the issue, it’s up to you. Serious people can see the issue. |  | | |
| Cummings on 22:07 - Jun 2 with 1431 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 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. |
Well if he didn’t think she had the disease he didn’t meet the requirements for emergency child care arrangements did he.
Haven’t thought that one through perhaps?
And if he said he thought there was a distinct possibility he’d caught the disease he shouldn’t have been at work.
So haven’t thought that one through either?
God, you’re gullible. | | | |
| Cummings on 22:20 - Jun 2 with 1410 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 22:07 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
Well if he didn’t think she had the disease he didn’t meet the requirements for emergency child care arrangements did he.
Haven’t thought that one through perhaps?
And if he said he thought there was a distinct possibility he’d caught the disease he shouldn’t have been at work.
So haven’t thought that one through either?
God, you’re gullible. |
Are you able to read?
Wakes up, she’s sick...but vomiting isn’t on the list of symptoms. Goes off to work...
Goes to work at the epicentre of a national crisis where everybody is socially distancing...let’s face it, he has bound to have had some conversations with people in the know about whether it was possible that his wife could have it despite displaying unusual symptoms...
...goes home, talks to the wife, they decide she might/probably does have it, thinks oh f*ck if she’s got it I’ll get it, how is this going to affect my work, what are we going to do about childcare, talks to the family, makes a decision, sets off with his family the next morning.
But enough of wasting everybody’s time, the police found that he did not break any laws .
The end. |  |
| |
| Cummings on 22:24 - Jun 2 with 1404 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 22:20 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
Are you able to read?
Wakes up, she’s sick...but vomiting isn’t on the list of symptoms. Goes off to work...
Goes to work at the epicentre of a national crisis where everybody is socially distancing...let’s face it, he has bound to have had some conversations with people in the know about whether it was possible that his wife could have it despite displaying unusual symptoms...
...goes home, talks to the wife, they decide she might/probably does have it, thinks oh f*ck if she’s got it I’ll get it, how is this going to affect my work, what are we going to do about childcare, talks to the family, makes a decision, sets off with his family the next morning.
But enough of wasting everybody’s time, the police found that he did not break any laws .
The end. |
That’s not what happened according to his own account.
Went to work. Wife calls him ill and unable to look after child. Goes home. She feels better. Goes back to work. Thinks he has it anyway. Goes home, drives 260 miles to his second home. Wife goes to hospital a few days later despite thinking she has it. He leaves house to get her despite thinking he has it. Pair of them with kid go on a jolly on her birthday. Gets seen by witness. Stops in woods. Gets seen again. Drives back to London.
Lies about it. Calls press conference despite just being a ‘Conservative party employee’. Makes up story to fit.
Government messaging disintegrates.
And they didn’t. [Post edited 2 Jun 2020 22:26]
| | | |
| Cummings on 22:39 - Jun 2 with 1377 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 22:02 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
You’ve quite literally quoted the law that he broke. Which is helpful.
Going on a jolly to Barnard Castle wasn’t a reasonable excuse.
They would have won in court. The reason they didn’t is because they haven’t retrospectively taken action against others.
Ironically they have prosecuted others for the same trip as he made from London.
He didn’t have a reasonable excuse. It is not exceptional for one adult to have the virus while having a child. Every parent who’s had it is in the same position.
I can’t be bothered. If you can’t see the issue, it’s up to you. Serious people can see the issue. |
”Going on a jolly to Barnard Castle wasn’t a reasonable excuse.“
This sentence sums up the bullshit for me.
Those with a political agenda are prepared to make out that a man making the best choice for his sick wife and child whilst continuing to work through it is the equivalent of “going on a jolly”.
” They would have won in court. The reason they didn’t is because they haven’t retrospectively taken action against others. ”
So either;
1) they would have won in court but chose not to...because the CPS is corrupt
2) they would have won in court by holding him to a higher standard than they have held anyone else (by prosecuting retrospectively)...but chose not to do that for...well, why exactly Lisa? Why did they choose not to do that if they could be sure to win that?
or
3) they were advised that they wouldn’t win and so dropped it.
Please enlighten us. | |
| |
| Cummings on 22:46 - Jun 2 with 1366 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 22:24 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
That’s not what happened according to his own account.
Went to work. Wife calls him ill and unable to look after child. Goes home. She feels better. Goes back to work. Thinks he has it anyway. Goes home, drives 260 miles to his second home. Wife goes to hospital a few days later despite thinking she has it. He leaves house to get her despite thinking he has it. Pair of them with kid go on a jolly on her birthday. Gets seen by witness. Stops in woods. Gets seen again. Drives back to London.
Lies about it. Calls press conference despite just being a ‘Conservative party employee’. Makes up story to fit.
Government messaging disintegrates.
And they didn’t. [Post edited 2 Jun 2020 22:26]
|
Hmmmm, whose account is more believable, Fact Check or Lisa.
I can’t be bothered to explain how your account could still tally with fact check, it’s tedious.
Should the police arrest that witness who it has emerged made his own 250 mile round trip and the CPS prosecute retrospectively?
What do you think should happen to the 2nd witness (the mythical 2nd trip) who has admitted lying and forging evidence? | |
| |
| Cummings on 22:56 - Jun 2 with 1358 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 22:39 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
”Going on a jolly to Barnard Castle wasn’t a reasonable excuse.“
This sentence sums up the bullshit for me.
Those with a political agenda are prepared to make out that a man making the best choice for his sick wife and child whilst continuing to work through it is the equivalent of “going on a jolly”.
” They would have won in court. The reason they didn’t is because they haven’t retrospectively taken action against others. ”
So either;
1) they would have won in court but chose not to...because the CPS is corrupt
2) they would have won in court by holding him to a higher standard than they have held anyone else (by prosecuting retrospectively)...but chose not to do that for...well, why exactly Lisa? Why did they choose not to do that if they could be sure to win that?
or
3) they were advised that they wouldn’t win and so dropped it.
Please enlighten us. |
You really are a gullible fool if you believe that he drove to Barnard Castle to make the best choice for his sick wife and child.
The child btw wasn’t sick - he tested negative. The wife wasn’t sick - she said so in her Spectator article,
The police said why they didn’t prosecute retrospectively.
You have obviously failed to understand any of it and simply launched in. | | | |
| Cummings on 22:58 - Jun 2 with 1353 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 22:46 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
Hmmmm, whose account is more believable, Fact Check or Lisa.
I can’t be bothered to explain how your account could still tally with fact check, it’s tedious.
Should the police arrest that witness who it has emerged made his own 250 mile round trip and the CPS prosecute retrospectively?
What do you think should happen to the 2nd witness (the mythical 2nd trip) who has admitted lying and forging evidence? |
My account was simply a repetition of his own press conference. He laid it all out.
He had it written down and everything. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cummings on 23:17 - Jun 2 with 1329 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 22:56 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
You really are a gullible fool if you believe that he drove to Barnard Castle to make the best choice for his sick wife and child.
The child btw wasn’t sick - he tested negative. The wife wasn’t sick - she said so in her Spectator article,
The police said why they didn’t prosecute retrospectively.
You have obviously failed to understand any of it and simply launched in. |
I have never claimed the child was sick.
So as you won’t answer a straight question I suppose we have to guess that your answer is no. 2 but you can’t explain why they would let him off when he definitely broke the law and were so sure of winning.
You are SO very clever. 😉 | |
| |
| Cummings on 23:20 - Jun 2 with 1325 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 22:58 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
My account was simply a repetition of his own press conference. He laid it all out.
He had it written down and everything. |
Are you above answering 2 straight questions or are you avoiding them deliberately as you fear looking foolish? | |
| |
| Cummings on 23:20 - Jun 2 with 1329 views | Kilkennyjack |
Guidance: On 28 May Durham Police said the drive to Barnard Castle "might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention" . It added that the offence was minor because there did not appear to have been any breach of the social distancing rules.
The statement said that if an officer had stopped Mr Cummings on the way to Barnard Castle, they would advised him to return to Durham. The constabulary said it would not be taking retrospective action against him because it would not do so against any other member of the public.
There was no mention in the statement of whether Mr Cummings was fit to drive given his concerns about his eyesight.
Its ‘might’ only because its the courts that decide - not the police - if someone is guilty. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Cummings on 23:49 - Jun 2 with 1313 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 23:20 - Jun 2 by Kilkennyjack |
Guidance: On 28 May Durham Police said the drive to Barnard Castle "might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention" . It added that the offence was minor because there did not appear to have been any breach of the social distancing rules.
The statement said that if an officer had stopped Mr Cummings on the way to Barnard Castle, they would advised him to return to Durham. The constabulary said it would not be taking retrospective action against him because it would not do so against any other member of the public.
There was no mention in the statement of whether Mr Cummings was fit to drive given his concerns about his eyesight.
Its ‘might’ only because its the courts that decide - not the police - if someone is guilty. |
Correct, the courts decide...not the police OR ANYBODY ELSE.
The end. | |
| |
| Cummings on 23:55 - Jun 2 with 1310 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 23:20 - Jun 2 by Kerouac |
Are you above answering 2 straight questions or are you avoiding them deliberately as you fear looking foolish? |
What straight questions?
About nonentities?
Yes, they should be prosecuted in the way any other member of the public is or isn’t.
Different to the key government advisor though don’t you think. | | | |
| Cummings on 00:00 - Jun 3 with 1303 views | builthjack |
What if the whole country had done what Cummings did?
Would Johnson say it was ok? |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Cummings on 00:46 - Jun 3 with 1276 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 23:55 - Jun 2 by londonlisa2001 |
What straight questions?
About nonentities?
Yes, they should be prosecuted in the way any other member of the public is or isn’t.
Different to the key government advisor though don’t you think. |
Well these two straight questions...
Should the police arrest that witness who it has emerged made his own 250 mile round trip and the CPS prosecute retrospectively?
What do you think should happen to the 2nd witness (the mythical 2nd trip) who has admitted lying and forging evidence?
What's with the pretence.
'nonentities' is a revealing word.
"Different to the key government advisor though don’t you think"
No, there's no difference. There is one law for all. You don't get to pick and choose who to apply the law too.
So you are for retrospective prosecution of those who broke the lockdown rules. Fines all round...as we know, there are many on here that would be prosecuted...many who took part in this particular witch hunt.
Millions of people prosecuted 
...and of course all the angry lefties would have nothing to say about that, they'd support the government and police in this endeavour 100%...and the Labour party wouldn't try to exploit that situation politically would they? ...and the courts and the police would have the capacity to achieve that wouldn't they?
It's like dealing with teenagers, I'm starting to think the newly enfranchised 16 year olds of Wales might even improve the standard of the electorate.
When the thread about the 'witnesses' being prosecuted starts up I look forward to the equally enthusiastic moral crusade from you and our resident lefty morons...but we all know that's bullshit don't we, you're not even fooling yourself.
What these political tactics have achieved is that the majority of the population has stopped listening, we've all had enough of the bullshit. | |
| |
| Cummings on 08:03 - Jun 3 with 1215 views | vetchonian |
| Cummings on 00:46 - Jun 3 by Kerouac |
Well these two straight questions...
Should the police arrest that witness who it has emerged made his own 250 mile round trip and the CPS prosecute retrospectively?
What do you think should happen to the 2nd witness (the mythical 2nd trip) who has admitted lying and forging evidence?
What's with the pretence.
'nonentities' is a revealing word.
"Different to the key government advisor though don’t you think"
No, there's no difference. There is one law for all. You don't get to pick and choose who to apply the law too.
So you are for retrospective prosecution of those who broke the lockdown rules. Fines all round...as we know, there are many on here that would be prosecuted...many who took part in this particular witch hunt.
Millions of people prosecuted
...and of course all the angry lefties would have nothing to say about that, they'd support the government and police in this endeavour 100%...and the Labour party wouldn't try to exploit that situation politically would they? ...and the courts and the police would have the capacity to achieve that wouldn't they?
It's like dealing with teenagers, I'm starting to think the newly enfranchised 16 year olds of Wales might even improve the standard of the electorate.
When the thread about the 'witnesses' being prosecuted starts up I look forward to the equally enthusiastic moral crusade from you and our resident lefty morons...but we all know that's bullshit don't we, you're not even fooling yourself.
What these political tactics have achieved is that the majority of the population has stopped listening, we've all had enough of the bullshit. |
Apart from you who has been indocrinated by it.
You still do not see the point!
Again I ask you when CUmmings went to Castle Barnard which of the four "justifiable reasons" for leaving your home as INSTRUCTED by the government was he compliant with?
You are correct the law is no different for anyone and no one has been calling for Cummings to be prosecuted..just as many others who have "bent/broken" those instructions have'nt either BUT this man is a high profile Government advisor ..in fact the man pulling Bojos strings.....he should not be seen to be going against what everyone else has been told .....and then has the front to givew a press conference!!!
By the way I am not a leftie,used to be a Tory supporter but feel recently they have lsot theor way to the extreme right ...as Labour have lost their way to the extreme left and British politics is missing out on a strong middle ground party....we need the emergence of another SDP as the gabg of 5 who broke form Labour in the eighties.
People are annoyed as they have sacrficied much over this lockdown yet it appears the priveleged few can do as they please....and yes Kinnock et al should not be forgotten but Cummings seems beyond reproach he isnt even elected!!!!
NO one is suggesting Cummings is prosecuted what people have questioned is him remaining in post and the BLIND support given to him by Boris!!!! | |
| |
| Cummings on 10:04 - Jun 3 with 1162 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 08:03 - Jun 3 by vetchonian |
Apart from you who has been indocrinated by it.
You still do not see the point!
Again I ask you when CUmmings went to Castle Barnard which of the four "justifiable reasons" for leaving your home as INSTRUCTED by the government was he compliant with?
You are correct the law is no different for anyone and no one has been calling for Cummings to be prosecuted..just as many others who have "bent/broken" those instructions have'nt either BUT this man is a high profile Government advisor ..in fact the man pulling Bojos strings.....he should not be seen to be going against what everyone else has been told .....and then has the front to givew a press conference!!!
By the way I am not a leftie,used to be a Tory supporter but feel recently they have lsot theor way to the extreme right ...as Labour have lost their way to the extreme left and British politics is missing out on a strong middle ground party....we need the emergence of another SDP as the gabg of 5 who broke form Labour in the eighties.
People are annoyed as they have sacrficied much over this lockdown yet it appears the priveleged few can do as they please....and yes Kinnock et al should not be forgotten but Cummings seems beyond reproach he isnt even elected!!!!
NO one is suggesting Cummings is prosecuted what people have questioned is him remaining in post and the BLIND support given to him by Boris!!!! |
"You are correct the law is no different for anyone and no one has been calling for Cummings to be prosecuted..just as many others who have "bent/broken" those instructions have'nt either BUT this man is a high profile Government advisor"
Not true, plenty have called for Cummings to be prosecuted.
"People are annoyed as they have sacrficied much over this lockdown yet it appears the priveleged few can do as they please....and yes Kinnock et al should not be forgotten but Cummings seems beyond reproach he isnt even elected!!!! "
All this boils down to is that before driving his family back down to London when his wife had recovered, he drove them to a remote castle.
Nobody else was put at risk either in the car or in the open air near the castle, if you need petrol you can pay at the pump.
The only purpose of giving the police powers on these matters was so that they could send people home IF, for example, Barnard Castle was swamped with people behaving inappropriately.
That's why the police have stated that all that would have happened if they stopped him (and they would only have stopped him if they had received a call from a local saying that there were hundreds/thousands of people at Barnard Castle, that is the only reason that they would have ever had an officer there checking cars) was they would have asked him to go home....Just like they would have asked anyone else in the same circumstance.
The powers given to the police were never meant to result in shite loads of prosecutions, criminalising half the population, clogging up our courts...and I don't know if you have noticed but our beaches and the parks (of London in particular) have been full of people who also haven't been prosecuted.
If employers started sacking people because somebody told them that their employees were down the beach/in a park/walking in the woods/visiting castles during lockdown there would be a national scandal right now....there would be riots in the streets.
The ONLY difference with Cummings is that he has people with a political agenda following he and his family around everywhere trying to dig up dirt to get him sacked.
These people are playing you all for fools.
Don't fall for it. | |
| |
| Cummings on 10:21 - Jun 3 with 1153 views | vetchonian |
| Cummings on 10:04 - Jun 3 by Kerouac |
"You are correct the law is no different for anyone and no one has been calling for Cummings to be prosecuted..just as many others who have "bent/broken" those instructions have'nt either BUT this man is a high profile Government advisor"
Not true, plenty have called for Cummings to be prosecuted.
"People are annoyed as they have sacrficied much over this lockdown yet it appears the priveleged few can do as they please....and yes Kinnock et al should not be forgotten but Cummings seems beyond reproach he isnt even elected!!!! "
All this boils down to is that before driving his family back down to London when his wife had recovered, he drove them to a remote castle.
Nobody else was put at risk either in the car or in the open air near the castle, if you need petrol you can pay at the pump.
The only purpose of giving the police powers on these matters was so that they could send people home IF, for example, Barnard Castle was swamped with people behaving inappropriately.
That's why the police have stated that all that would have happened if they stopped him (and they would only have stopped him if they had received a call from a local saying that there were hundreds/thousands of people at Barnard Castle, that is the only reason that they would have ever had an officer there checking cars) was they would have asked him to go home....Just like they would have asked anyone else in the same circumstance.
The powers given to the police were never meant to result in shite loads of prosecutions, criminalising half the population, clogging up our courts...and I don't know if you have noticed but our beaches and the parks (of London in particular) have been full of people who also haven't been prosecuted.
If employers started sacking people because somebody told them that their employees were down the beach/in a park/walking in the woods/visiting castles during lockdown there would be a national scandal right now....there would be riots in the streets.
The ONLY difference with Cummings is that he has people with a political agenda following he and his family around everywhere trying to dig up dirt to get him sacked.
These people are playing you all for fools.
Don't fall for it. |
You are the fool
And this whole episode shows how this country is rapidly descending into a mess
Growing up I was taught about example , following rules etc how are people expected to be disciplined when someone who is involved with setting these rules does not conform.
Guess what being in the public eye means his every move will be watched.....just as Corbyn was pictured not observing social distancing with his son
Cummings should not have been driving to Castle Barnard at all never mind he did not come into contact with anyone
You still fail to answer which of the four reasons for travelling did his visit to the castle come under
Remember the governments message at that time STAY AT HOME he didnt!
IT is down to people like you this country is being taken down a path which is destructive
Ignore the politics .....but you cant! [Post edited 3 Jun 2020 10:28]
| |
| |
| Cummings on 10:54 - Jun 3 with 1102 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 10:04 - Jun 3 by Kerouac |
"You are correct the law is no different for anyone and no one has been calling for Cummings to be prosecuted..just as many others who have "bent/broken" those instructions have'nt either BUT this man is a high profile Government advisor"
Not true, plenty have called for Cummings to be prosecuted.
"People are annoyed as they have sacrficied much over this lockdown yet it appears the priveleged few can do as they please....and yes Kinnock et al should not be forgotten but Cummings seems beyond reproach he isnt even elected!!!! "
All this boils down to is that before driving his family back down to London when his wife had recovered, he drove them to a remote castle.
Nobody else was put at risk either in the car or in the open air near the castle, if you need petrol you can pay at the pump.
The only purpose of giving the police powers on these matters was so that they could send people home IF, for example, Barnard Castle was swamped with people behaving inappropriately.
That's why the police have stated that all that would have happened if they stopped him (and they would only have stopped him if they had received a call from a local saying that there were hundreds/thousands of people at Barnard Castle, that is the only reason that they would have ever had an officer there checking cars) was they would have asked him to go home....Just like they would have asked anyone else in the same circumstance.
The powers given to the police were never meant to result in shite loads of prosecutions, criminalising half the population, clogging up our courts...and I don't know if you have noticed but our beaches and the parks (of London in particular) have been full of people who also haven't been prosecuted.
If employers started sacking people because somebody told them that their employees were down the beach/in a park/walking in the woods/visiting castles during lockdown there would be a national scandal right now....there would be riots in the streets.
The ONLY difference with Cummings is that he has people with a political agenda following he and his family around everywhere trying to dig up dirt to get him sacked.
These people are playing you all for fools.
Don't fall for it. |
“All this boils down to is that before driving his family back down to London when his wife had recovered, he drove them to a remote castle. “
Barnard Castle is a town in County Durham not a ‘remote castle’. It’s named after a castle that’s there, that wasn’t open and he didn’t visit.
Lol.
That time you took to establish the facts was well worth it in fairness. | | | |
| Cummings on 10:59 - Jun 3 with 1097 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 10:54 - Jun 3 by londonlisa2001 |
“All this boils down to is that before driving his family back down to London when his wife had recovered, he drove them to a remote castle. “
Barnard Castle is a town in County Durham not a ‘remote castle’. It’s named after a castle that’s there, that wasn’t open and he didn’t visit.
Lol.
That time you took to establish the facts was well worth it in fairness. |
Oh you've got me there, what a fine forensic legal mind you possess
No, I haven't researched Barnard Castle, like I haven't examined Stephen Kinnock's movements or sought photos of the funeral Tahir Ali was at...I've got better things to do with my time and don't go around sticking my nose into other people's business.
WHAT HAPPENED TO LABOUR'S LINE NOT SO LONG AGO "TREAT US LIKE GROWN UPS"
| |
| |
| Cummings on 11:03 - Jun 3 with 1095 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 10:59 - Jun 3 by Kerouac |
Oh you've got me there, what a fine forensic legal mind you possess
No, I haven't researched Barnard Castle, like I haven't examined Stephen Kinnock's movements or sought photos of the funeral Tahir Ali was at...I've got better things to do with my time and don't go around sticking my nose into other people's business.
WHAT HAPPENED TO LABOUR'S LINE NOT SO LONG AGO "TREAT US LIKE GROWN UPS"
|
The rest of your analysis is equally pointless. Given you don’t know the basic facts.
Remote castle. All those GSK meetings there must get in the way of people examining the ramparts don’t you think?
Oh, and I called for Kinnock to be sanctioned. On here. | | | |
| Cummings on 11:07 - Jun 3 with 1087 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 11:03 - Jun 3 by londonlisa2001 |
The rest of your analysis is equally pointless. Given you don’t know the basic facts.
Remote castle. All those GSK meetings there must get in the way of people examining the ramparts don’t you think?
Oh, and I called for Kinnock to be sanctioned. On here. |
Good for you, I didn't. I like to actually treat people like grown ups, it's not just a slogan I use cynically for political reasons.
If I was badgering somebody, trying to take their income away from them, their career for the "crime" of doing the best thing for their family...and both Kinnock and Cummings are intelligent people who knew what the situation was and endeavoured not to put others at risk...I honestly couldn't live with myself.
You should be ashamed. | |
| |
| Cummings on 11:11 - Jun 3 with 1083 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Cummings on 11:07 - Jun 3 by Kerouac |
Good for you, I didn't. I like to actually treat people like grown ups, it's not just a slogan I use cynically for political reasons.
If I was badgering somebody, trying to take their income away from them, their career for the "crime" of doing the best thing for their family...and both Kinnock and Cummings are intelligent people who knew what the situation was and endeavoured not to put others at risk...I honestly couldn't live with myself.
You should be ashamed. |
I haven’t asked for them to have their income taken away from them.
You don’t half make stuff up.
Largely because you are uninformed. A ‘remote castle’ hahahahahahahahaha. | | | |
| Cummings on 11:15 - Jun 3 with 1080 views | Kerouac |
| Cummings on 10:54 - Jun 3 by londonlisa2001 |
“All this boils down to is that before driving his family back down to London when his wife had recovered, he drove them to a remote castle. “
Barnard Castle is a town in County Durham not a ‘remote castle’. It’s named after a castle that’s there, that wasn’t open and he didn’t visit.
Lol.
That time you took to establish the facts was well worth it in fairness. |
...and by the way the fact you think whether he visited the actual castle or not has any relevance to this debate in anyway whatsoever is a fine example of missing the point completely.
It is a low rent, low intelligence contribution.
A bit like Warwick and his penchant for picking up on people's spelling.
Petty.
...but then, doesn't the word 'Petty' sum up this whole Cummings scandal. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
