RugbyRebels

If Cummings is still an issue by the next PMQs I'll be still more ashamed of my country

canta_brian wrote:

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Finally. An upside to all this. Luckily, my implement is long enough that we should be able to stick to social distancing rules whilst touching tips - what a hoe.

Pluoughing a new path to novel punland. Nice.

Don’t trust him. The man’s a rake.

Time to throw in the trowel.

Galfon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

morepork wrote:

Pluoughing a new path to novel punland. Nice.

Don’t trust him. The man’s a rake.

Time to throw in the trowel.

Sometimes you've just got to call a spade a spade

Digby wrote:

Galfon wrote:

canta_brian wrote: Don’t trust him. The man’s a rake.

Time to throw in the trowel.

Sometimes you've just got to call a spade a spade

At least he didn't drive to Barrow..

I do enjoy David Allen Green.

A brief thread about law, instincts, and regulations
Look at Regulation 6 of the Coronavirus Regulations
This is the provision that restricts movement during the lockdown: http://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6
6(1) provides a prohibition.
This prohibition applies to everyone, other than - if you scroll down to 6(4) - the homeless.
There is no express exception for Dominic Cummings
The 6(1) prohibition is subject to one carve out
This is a "reasonable excuse"
The word "reasonable" is legally crucial here
Not just "excuse" - but a "reasonable excuse"
This means it is not for person to decide themselves, it is an objective test - ultimately for a court.
If the word "reasonable" was not in 6(1) then it would be an "anything goes" situation - if you had an excuse - any excuse - the prohibition would not apply.
The requirement of reasonableness means mere instinct or any subjective belief is not enough.
And there is more
There is a non-exhaustive list of "reasonable excuses" at 6(2)
None of these mention "instinct"
But you will see that, in the head clause, each of these excuses is also subject to the word "need"
This means there is another legal test: necessity.
So to escape the prohibition there needs to be not only a reasonable excuse but that the excursion has to be necessary
The test of necessity, again, would be an objective one - further reinforcing that mere instinct or subjective belief is not enough.
Take the words "reasonable" and "the need" out of 6(1) and then you could have the subjective provision which would make instinct a trump card, but they are there.
Assuming Dominic Cummings is not homeless, given his number of homes, then he is a person to whom 6(1) would apply
As such, there are objective tests of reasonableness and necessity for any excursion to meet, for which "instinct" is insufficient.
So, to assert that his "instinct" is enough for the rules not to apply to him is wrong at law
If he had a "reasonable excuse" then that ultimately is not for him to determine.
And this is why the defences of him following his instinct are wrong-headed and legally unsound.

Galfon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Galfon wrote: Time to throw in the trowel.

Sometimes you've just got to call a spade a spade

At least he didn't drive to Barrow..

His mission was to put a fork in the Tyne

Digby wrote:

Galfon wrote:

Digby wrote:
Sometimes you've just got to call a spade a spade

At least he didn't drive to Barrow..

His mission was to put a fork in the Tyne

Can't take much mower of this..



(he has to go.)

Galfon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Galfon wrote: At least he didn't drive to Barrow..

His mission was to put a fork in the Tyne

Can't take much mower of this..



(he has to go.)

Sometimes you have to prune the deadwood

Digby wrote:

Galfon wrote:

Digby wrote:
His mission was to put a fork in the Tyne

Can't take much mower of this..



(he has to go.)

Sometimes you have to prune the deadwood

The advisory team needs to be trimmer.

We all need to lawn from our mistakes.


Please stop.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:We all need to lawn from our mistakes.


Please stop.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Trugs shoulders

Johnson and Cummings will be concerned that the Daily Mail has turned against them on this one.

The Telegraph and Express are as supportive as ever; the Times is mildly critical, but claims it's not bad enough for resignation; the Sun is supportive but trying to ignore the issue.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 30991.html

One thing Cummings is distracting from: over the weekend the UK went ahead of Italy in its total per capita deaths (albeit only by 0.1 person/million).

So ignoring micro-states San Marino and Andorra, we are now 3rd in the world behind Belgium and Spain.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:the Times is mildly critical, but claims it's not bad enough for resignation;

Have you read today’s Times? I have and there is one column saying it’s not bad enough to resign and even that is heavily couched. Prior to that is a column that says his position is untenable and even dangerous. Snippets such as ‘What makes Cummings’s disregard for the rules doubly galling....compounded by the press conference held last night by the prime minister, winner of the Brass Neck Award 2020 for outstanding work in denial, obfuscation and mendacity....and here is the problem with political hypocrisy.....it is scarcely believable that clarity and solidarity on the lockdown have been sacrificed...”

The lead article starts with the following sentence:
‘Boris Johnson faces a backlash from cabinet ministers and senior MPs after insisting that Dominic Cummings acted “responsibly, legally and with integrity” amid claims that he broke coronavirus lockdown rules.’
Also contains:
‘more than a dozen Conservative MPs criticised government publicly.....one MP, Paul Maynard, called for Mr Cummings to resign after Mr Johnson’s address.....Mr Johnson also faced criticism from Professor Stephen Reicher.....Mr Cummings was met with shouts of “hypocrite” and “resign” outside his north London home....’
There is a piece about how his mother spoke to the New Statesman about the death of his uncle, including quotes from Durham’s recently retired chief constable such as “I can’t think of a more blatantly stupid disregard of the rules.....Cummings and all the people springing to his aid should hang their heads in shame....seems to be operating in a bubble of selfish privilege and denial...I’m really angry...” This is followed by a piece setting out Stephen Reicher’s criticism in more detail.

Even the piece saying Cummings’s actions aren’t bad enough for him to resign contains the following ‘The question for Mr Johnson is whether his aide’s conduct was within the rules. It is at least plausible that he was, given the exemptions in place.’ Hardly a full throttle defence. The column concludes ‘ The government’s communications strategy and Mr Cummings’s abrasive response to criticism have been tin-eared by ignoring the sensitivity of the issue and failing to acknowledge that the public have undergone extreme privations in observing the lockdown. That defensiveness is itself a failure, but, meanwhile Mr Johnson has a government to run and a public health crisis to defuse. He should be allowed to get on with it.’ If that’s my defence lawyer’s summation, I’m seeking a mistrial and new counsel.

All the above doesn’t look like mild criticism to me. I don’t know who your source is but it seems they have an agenda, at worst, or don’t know what they’re talking about, at best. One of the reason I read The Times is that it has differing views published within it. On this it seems critical of the Cummings and govts reaction whilst also providing one counter point.

Cummings giving a press conference at 4.00 - from the Rose Garden.

Which is a bit like Monica Lewinsky giving her side of the story from the oval office.

Rumours that he's going to announce that he's firing Johnson

He's squirming resoloutely, but on reflection is convinced
he behaved reasonably in the 14 day period.
The Pestmeister is alerting him of senior scientists' concerns of individuals pushing/crossing boundaries..he doesn't seem to get it, or the upset of thousands of other families who have not seen kinfolk for months.

Galfon wrote:He's squirming resoloutely, but on reflection is convinced
he behaved reasonably in the 14 day period.
The Pestmeister is alerting him of senior scientists' concerns of individuals pushing/crossing boundaries..he doesn't seem to get it, or the upset of thousands of other families who have not seen kinfolk for months.

The way he has approached this is on some ways worse than the offence. No humility at all or recognition of the misery many have suffered over the past two months. It’s almost like he has no other response but aggression, like it’s one long election campaign.

The Times editorials has been largely pro government throughout this crisis but many of the columnists have been scathing.

Sandydragon wrote:The Times editorials has been largely pro government throughout this crisis but many of the columnists have been scathing.

I think you would try to be pro government in a crisis. Most major governments will have made something of that with the obvious exception of Trump

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The Times editorials has been largely pro government throughout this crisis but many of the columnists have been scathing.

I think you would try to be pro government in a crisis. Most major governments will have made something of that with the obvious exception of Trump

Agreed. The Sunday Times has been more obsequious but there have been some criticisms in there as well.

The position the Cummings found themselves in was obviously exceptional. I mean, no one else in Britain would have had to weigh up the difficulties imposed by the possibility of both parents being ill and so stricken that they would be unable to look after a small child. That dreadful dilemma would obviously only have applied to Dom and his missus.
Yep, they were put in a uniquely difficult position that no parent - single or a couple - would have had to face.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The Times editorials has been largely pro government throughout this crisis but many of the columnists have been scathing.

I think you would try to be pro government in a crisis. Most major governments will have made something of that with the obvious exception of Trump

Agreed. The Sunday Times has been more obsequious but there have been some criticisms in there as well.

I disagree, they should try not to be anti government, but I wouldn’t go so far as saying pro government.

They should be spreading the message around the crisis but not parroting the government on everything

canta_brian wrote:

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Finally. An upside to all this. Luckily, my implement is long enough that we should be able to stick to social distancing rules whilst touching tips - what a hoe.

Pluoughing a new path to novel punland. Nice.

Don’t trust him. The man’s a rake.

He seems a perfectly agreeable fallow.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I think you would try to be pro government in a crisis. Most major governments will have made something of that with the obvious exception of Trump

Agreed. The Sunday Times has been more obsequious but there have been some criticisms in there as well.

I disagree, they should try not to be anti government, but I wouldn’t go so far as saying pro government.

They should be spreading the message around the crisis but not parroting the government on everything

That you'd try to be more of a mind that we're all in this together and you have a government in charge of a national crisis that you'd hope to support, whatever their political bent, doesn't mean you'd parrot them on everything. All I'd be considering is you'd try to be supportive, that doesn't rule out you might fail in those efforts, and that some of those failures would be for perfectly sound reasons.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Agreed. The Sunday Times has been more obsequious but there have been some criticisms in there as well.

I disagree, they should try not to be anti government, but I wouldn’t go so far as saying pro government.

They should be spreading the message around the crisis but not parroting the government on everything

That you'd try to be more of a mind that we're all in this together and you have a government in charge of a national crisis that you'd hope to support, whatever their political bent, doesn't mean you'd parrot them on everything. All I'd be considering is you'd try to be supportive, that doesn't rule out you might fail in those efforts, and that some of those failures would be for perfectly sound reasons.

Well indeed. But being supportive and being pro government are not the same thing...

Like here: almost every media outlet reports only on the fact there's hardly any deaths comparatively. And how great the government has done. And how badly the mayor of Budapest has done. Because they're all pro government.

But 2 places (online only) report on it as yes, we've done well, but...