So, whadda we gonna moan abart?

[moonay]

You published part of it in that post I replied to as it fit your agenda. A public statement denouncing a lack of impartiality is a reprimand.

Though I admire your pedantry, I can see you're struggling. You know I'd posted the full statement previously, so why would I try and hide anything?

The public statement didn't "denounce" anything. Neither did it mention "reprimand" ......... though it did say "reminded", which admittedly contains a lot of the same letters as "reprimand". Maybe that's what's confusing you.

Again you’re posting a part statement. It’s becoming a habit. I’ve no reason to check the law and legal process. I’m fully aware of it and told you this is the case. You claimed they said he ‘did’ break the law. They have never said this. They said ‘might’ for those reasons outlined around the legal process. Don’t confuse the two meanings.

I'm sorry, (and I'm sorry to be condescending), but the police went as far as they could when they said "might". The very fact that they said they would have sent him home shows that they would have taken action. The police don't take action against someone who isn't breaking the law. If he'd refused, then he'd have been in trouble.

They have investigated. You’re wrong again. Perhaps if you careful read their statement you would know what investigation they’ve undertaken.

They've made a statement. Nowhere do they say they conducted an investigation. In addition, Johnson has specifically said that he doesn't intend to request or initiate any investigation ........ Police or otherwise.

Indeed, you are seeing what you see. You won’t accept facts and choose to interpret events as you want due to selective bias. You are now moaning he set the wrong example by leaving regardless whether or not he breached guidelines. When I say you have agenda it’s because you are coming across as obsessed.

I'm always happy to be appraised of any "facts" I won't accept. .......and as for interpreting events with a selective bias, then I say again, Hello Mr Pot.

I've moaned from the start that he set a wrong example. I've maintained that his behaviour should be exemplar.

Contrary to the guidance from Jenny Harries, at no time was Cummings decision to go to Durham a "matter of life or death".

 

[Made in Wigan]

Though I admire your pedantry, I can see you're struggling. You know I'd posted the full statement previously, so why would I try and hide anything?

The public statement didn't "denounce" anything. Neither did it mention "reprimand" ......... though it did say "reminded", which admittedly contains a lot of the same letters as "reprimand". Maybe that's what's confusing you.

I’m afraid it is you who are struggling. I’m aware of the spelling of the two words, but it seems this is the extent of your comeback. There is no confusion. You just can’t accept the bbc published a statement stating impartiality was not adhered to. It doesn’t fit your agenda so I get why you’re upset.

sorry, (and I'm sorry to be condescending), but the police went as far as they could when they said "might". The very fact that they said they would have sent him home shows that they would have taken action. The police don't take action against someone who isn't breaking the law. If he'd refused, then he'd have been in trouble.

Now you’re changing your tune when it’s been pointed out you are wrong. ‘Might’ is correct, ‘did’ as you gleefully claimed isn’t correct and they have two different implications. Again I get why you did as it doesn’t fit your agenda.

They've made a statement. Nowhere do they say they conducted an investigation. In addition, Johnson has specifically said that he doesn't intend to request or initiate any investigation ........ Police or otherwise.

They have investigated. Otherwise they wouldn’t have accessed ANPR data, spoken to witnesses or considered his account. It isn’t the PMs role to determine what is and isn’t investigated, certainly not a case like this.

I'm always happy to be appraised of any "facts" I won't accept. .......and as for interpreting events with a selective bias, then I say again, Hello Mr Pot.

I've moaned from the start that he set a wrong example. I've maintained that his behaviour should be exemplar.

Contrary to the guidance from Jenny Harries, at no time was Cummings decision to go to Durham a "matter of life or death".

Give over, you don’t like any facts that don’t suit your agenda. It’s was like puling teeth explaining his wife didn’t have covid symptoms when he returned to work. 6 days now and you’re still excitedly micro analysing the intricate details and movements of a government advisor to find fault. It’s obsessive and cannot be healthy. The discussion has become tedious and it appears we are going round in circles. Accept the outcome you desired hasn’t transpired and move on.

 

[jocklatic]

Message for Monsuier Moonay....come on admit it, your more than a tad pissed off Mr. Cummings is still in place, still lording it with his joined at the hip PM, still his Laurel to Hardy, still his Morecambe to Wise n for now still his Ant to Dec.....
For someone to be so deeply involved & concerned about DC's movements, actions & position is a wee bit naah a large bit unhealthy. If a poster on here was showing the same deep rooted going ons about say a Latics manager you'd be first in the queue to tell said poster to take a set back n look at the real world ......just saying like

Edit ....my post was posted prior to reading MiW's post #3,162 where I agree totally with his last paragraph.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

In reply to moonay.

'Piers Morgan has tweeted in her defence' - Piers Morgan has been slating everything government related since the election when he didn't get an interview - of course he defender it fits his narative. His GMTV partner Suzanne Reid is hardly a right winger but she has condemned her - i could probably find you a number of people who dont like Cummings but aren't biased enough to see what was said was inapprorpiate. But what they all say is largely irrelevent in this context we can all see what happened.

'You make these "brexiteer & remainer" allegations, but if that were so, then again, surely some action would have been taken. After all, we've had a Brexiteer government since the referendum.' - Maitlis isn't the BBC by herself so her bias alone wouldn't prompt retaliation you'd imagine but I suspect her behaviour has contrinuted to the push behind the decriminalisation of the licence fee. They aren't aligation they actually happend though, i'm not quoting my perception of what she said was wrong i'm citing the ones that BBC appologised for and her own tweets.

'As for her congratulating the Mirror, though I'm not saying you're wrong, I can't see that on her timeline.' it was Sunday afternoon after Cummings press confrence, not sure if she deleted it.

'What detail and context did Mailtis leave out? She doesn't need to repeat the whole Cummings speech again. It's the bits that were dodgy that formed the basis of the article.' - she said he 'had broken the lockdown' as a matter of fact when that is in dispute due to the exceptions for childcare in guidlines that Cummings believed (rightly or wrongly) he fell within. If she said 'Cummings has been accused of breaking lockdown but he and the Primeminister have argued that he acted within the rules' - that is fine and accurate but she only gave 1 side of the story - you don't have to accept the other side of the story but you have to acknoweldge it exists if you aren't partizan. No ones is expecting her to dive into all the details - but she deliberetly and disengenously made out like it is cut and dry with no grey area when the whole story is literally in the grey area. The narrative she pushed was that Cummings and the government accept he broke the rules and are keeping him despite him being guilty, when they do not accept rules were broken and are him and keeping him as they feel he is innocent. Again i'm not arguing you have to agree with Cummings - but omitting his defence when it's not a categorically settled case is blatent bias. At the time the police even said he hadn't broken guidlines although they have since said the second drive to the castle may have been 'a minor breach'.

'Newsnight covered the grooming stuff in great detail, and (I'm sure) scrutinised Starmer over that period.' The point isn't that they haven't talked about grooming gans in the past - it was a hypothetical comparision - if someone made a similar statement 'Cumming broke the law' / 'Starmer failed the girls of Rotherham' they are both equally void of the context and pushing an angle on the story.

'those Tory MPs doctor the video, as opposed to merely remove context?'
I brought up the misrepresentation of Starmer deliberetly and you've proven my point by saying how wrong it was - but the Tory MP's didn't share a doctored video if it was the one i say, but they shared a short clip with the answer to a question he gave - but by clipping it at that point without what was said before and after it completely changed the context and made it sound like he was making a different point than he actually was. They removed context that conflicted with the narrative they wanted to push and you quite rightly saw that as unfair - Maitlis equally deliberetly removed context aswell to change the narrative of the story to make it go from a 'is he guilty or not?' to a 'government keeping a guilty man!'. A lie by omission is still a lie, neither the Conservative MP or Maitlis behaved acceptably but one of those sources is paid to be impartial and lets not pretend she would've come up with that off the top of her head she would've had that approved by the editor it was calculated and wrong.

You think Cummings should go and Boris is terrible for keeping him but Kinnock and Ali and the other couple who did just as bad (if not worse in Ali's case at least) aren't an issue and Starmer doing nothing was fair. I never called for them to go as I'm not into this culture of wanting everyone sacked all the time - there are some serious things that of course should result in automatic dismissal but driving during lockdown for childcare concerns when it is at least debatable is not reaching that point for me. How many people were actually impacted by what Cummings did? Fortunately i wasn't in the situation where my only childcare options were at the other end of the country but if they were and there was a option to isolate there i'd have taken the precautions Cummings did and i suspect many others would. I think the issue here is the media have made this into something that is so much more than it is. I'm not saying it's nothing but on the scale of crimes Cummings could commit the press are presenting this as a 10 out of 10 with their coverage when i think it being a 5 is a push.

If the media made this same fuss about Kinnock and Ali prior to this, doorstepping them, people like Maitlis condeming them on Newsnight etc - i would say that it was blown out of all proportion but when it came to doing the same to Cummings i'd say fair enough at least they are applying the same standards. But the fact that they hardly even mentioned, there was no media camping outside their houses, harassing their family, and their boss wasn't quizzed on it for days and days shows that they utlimately don't really care about the crime but see this as an opportunity to bring down someone who they hate. Half the country has broken lockdown with a lot less of an excuse / reason than Cummings and he fine for breaking lockdown is 60 -100 quid - i don't believe any of the MPs have even paid it even when the police said the Labour ones did.

Simple standard no one was outraged when it wasn't Cummings so why should anyone be outraged when it's only him? Surely they all go or none of them go, Starmer had the chance to set the precident and show Boris how it's done and he didn't (i'm on his side he shouldn't have sacked them) so it's hypocritical to slate Boris for doing the same. They say one rule for one and one rule for everyone else and i absolutely agree so if Starmer did nothing wrong then Boris didn't either, if the Labour lads deserve to stay so does Cummings.

 

[moonay]

Message for Monsuier Moonay....come on admit it, your more than a tad pissed off Mr. Cummings is still in place, still lording it with his joined at the hip PM, still his Laurel to Hardy, still his Morecambe to Wise n for now still his Ant to Dec.....
For someone to be so deeply involved & concerned about DC's movements, actions & position is a wee bit naah a large bit unhealthy. If a poster on here was showing the same deep rooted going ons about say a Latics manager you'd be first in the queue to tell said poster to take a set back n look at the real world ......just saying like

Edit ....my post was posted prior to reading MiW's post #3,162 where I agree totally with his last paragraph.

Jock, I think it's totally disgraceful that he's still in post. It's not so much what he did, but the way he's gone about things afterwards. An apology re going to Durham, with a simple explanation, then fine. His hilarious excuse for going to Barnard Castle is just pathetic.

What's most worrying though - and this is why I don't think he should still be in post - is the dependency that the PM seems to have on him. It's preposterous that he's gone to such lengths to keep a SpAd in place.

Now, he's rushing into further easement, even when the underlying message from Vallance seemed to be that he thought it extremely risky...........just in an attempt to get Cummings off the front page.

Disgraceful.

EDIT - Sorry Jock, I must have originally skipped over your point about "look at the real world".

With 30 odd thousand dead, (probably over 50) I Think I am looking at the real world.........and it's fucking not nice.

 

[moonay]

I’m afraid it is you who are struggling. I’m aware of the spelling of the two words, but it seems this is the extent of your comeback. There is no confusion. You just can’t accept the bbc published a statement stating impartiality was not adhered to. It doesn’t fit your agenda so I get why you’re upset.

Here we go........ignore the point yet again. The statement didn't denounce anything, there was no mention of reprimand, and no-one got a bollocking. You read it in the Telegraph.

No more to be said.

Now you’re changing your tune when it’s been pointed out you are wrong. ‘Might’ is correct, ‘did’ as you gleefully claimed isn’t correct and they have two different implications. Again I get why you did as it doesn’t fit your agenda.

No, You still don't get it. The police can't say that he "did" something wrong, As you yourself said, that's up to the courts. They said he might have, because that's as far as they can go. Ask any copper.

The fact that they would have taken action tells you (well, tells a reasonable person) all you need to know. They thought he did wrong.

They have investigated. Otherwise they wouldn’t have accessed ANPR data, spoken to witnesses or considered his account. It isn’t the PMs role to determine what is and isn’t investigated, certainly not a case like this.

But yet, you said that the PM didn't comment due to the "investigation. He didn't mention any investigation. Just because the Police checked a few details doesn't make it an investigation.

Give over, you don’t like any facts that don’t suit your agenda. It’s was like puling teeth explaining his wife didn’t have covid symptoms when he returned to work. 6 days now and you’re still excitedly micro analysing the intricate details and movements of a government advisor to find fault. It’s obsessive and cannot be healthy. The discussion has become tedious and it appears we are going round in circles. Accept the outcome you desired hasn’t transpired and move on.

I ask you to appraise me of any facts I'm not accepting, and instead, I get zilch.

His wife thought she had Covid when he ran home, then she decided she didn't (so he could go back to work), then maybe she though she might have it ....or catch it ....... what a palaver. More flip flop than a Benidorm beach.

You're right .....the discussion is tedious. Feel free to stop with it. Let's face it, you've made your own version of events, and you're going to stick with it.

 

[moonay]

KDZ,
You're right .....we can all see what happened ...... and other than the "blind loyalty" comment, everything was a provable fact.

I don't really get what you're saying about the Brexit argument.

I can't see the Mirror tweet there now .......not sure why she'd delete it.

He did break lockdown ........ at the very least, at Barnard Castle...... as the Police confirmed. Leaving London, I grant you is in dispute (exceptional circumstance......matter of life or death) but Barnard Castle isn't. As it happened, all the detail (London based also) was discussed ...,,,,just not mentioned in a 50 second summary.

She didn't push a narrative that "Cummings and the government accept he broke the rules and are keeping him despite him being guilty," ....... where on earth did you get that from?

Maitlis did very little - if anything - wrong. The addition of a couple of words (seemingly, or it appears) to accompany the blind loyalty comment would probably have covered it.

You bring up Kinnock and Ali (no Jenrick?) again.......and even if I say OK, I agree, they should go ........ their actions were not those of someone standing alongside the PM, someone who's attended the SAGE meetings, someone who helped formulate the guidelines, and someone who (as a result) should have been an exemplar. Surely, you realise that?

Childcare concerns my arse.

People are outraged because it's Cummings ........ the man (behind the man) in charge. Leadership is all about: Accountability. Example. Integrity. Ownership. Understanding. Neither Cummings nor Johnson have shown any of these.

That's why they probably both deserve to go.

 

[jocklatic]

Jock, I think it's totally disgraceful that he's still in post. It's not so much what he did, but the way he's gone about things afterwards. An apology re going to Durham, with a simple explanation, then fine. His hilarious excuse for going to Barnard Castle is just pathetic.

What's most worrying though - and this is why I don't think he should still be in post - is the dependency that the PM seems to have on him. It's preposterous that he's gone to such lengths to keep a SpAd in place.

Now, he's rushing into further easement, even when the underlying message from Vallance seemed to be that he thought it extremely risky...........just in an attempt to get Cummings off the front page.

Disgraceful.

EDIT - Sorry Jock, I must have originally skipped over your point about "look at the real world".

With 30 odd thousand dead, (probably over 50) I Think I am looking at the real world.........and it's fucking not nice.

The 'look at the real world' was in the context of if someone was bitching, moaning and complaining about a manager, bit like your obsession with DC...in NO WAY was it making light of +30K deaths....

Tho you've just confirmed my suspicions & prob those of others on here about your obsession with DC / BJ & come across as a rather bitter Remainer.

 

[moonay]

The decision of the Durham Police ......explained by those who know the law.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1266033777555488768

 

[moonay]

The 'look at the real world' was in the context of if someone was bitching, moaning and complaining about a manager, bit like your obsession with DC...in NO WAY was it making light of +30K deaths.....

You mentioned "real world". What am I supposed to think you meant by if not ......the real world?

I didn't - and wouldn't - suggest that you intended to make light of any amount of deaths ............ but that's our current real world.

Tho you've just confirmed my suspicions & prob those of others on here about your obsession with DC / BJ & come across as a rather bitter Remainer.

A couple of minutes ago, your comment here made me very angry, and I was really going to rip into you for being another to continually harp on about Brexit and bitter Remainers.

However, in those couple of minutes that it took me to type the reply above, I realise that would be pointless, and serve no purpose whatsoever.

Think what you like of me Jock, but right now, we have one of the worst records in the world in handling this virus, and as we move into this new phase whilst we've still had 50,000 people tested positive this week, I'm sorry, but being called petty names just doesn't have any effect.

 

[walgarthjohn]

Look at the fools on Bournemouth Beech. that’s we’re the problem is not one man going for a ride. These Will be the same people saying they can’t go to work Or send the kids back to school Yes he should not have. But he was not sat next to any one on a Beech. Just political games. Like I said before god help us if there is every A war. Boris is a likeable bloke. Should get a bit tougher and stand up to these reporters. Like. Trump

 

[Hampton]

You mentioned "real world". What am I supposed to think you meant by if not ......the real world?

I didn't - and wouldn't - suggest that you intended to make light of any amount of deaths ............ but that's our current real world.



A couple of minutes ago, your comment here made me very angry, and I was really going to rip into you for being another to continually harp on about Brexit and bitter Remainers.

However, in those couple of minutes that it took me to type the reply above, I realise that would be pointless, and serve no purpose whatsoever.

Think what you like of me Jock, but right now, we have one of the worst records in the world in handling this virus, and as we move into this new phase whilst we've still had 50,000 people tested positive this week, I'm sorry, but being called petty names just doesn't have any effect.

TBF Jock has a point about being a bitter remainer
In other news SKS has finished feeding carrots and grooming the donkeys and is back to being "helpful" - has one man ever owned so many caveats ?

 

[moonay]

Look at the fools on Bournemouth Beech. that’s we’re the problem is not one man going for a ride. These Will be the same people saying they can’t go to work Or send the kids back to school Yes he should not have. But he was not sat next to any one on a Beech. Just political games. Like I said before god help us if there is every A war. Boris is a likeable bloke. Should get a bit tougher and stand up to these reporters. Like. Trump

Thanks for managing to put a smile on our faces John.

 

[moonay]

In other news SKS has finished feeding carrots and grooming the donkeys ......

Who knew that carrots needed feeding?

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

KDZ,
You're right .....we can all see what happened ...... and other than the "blind loyalty" comment, everything was a provable fact.

I don't really get what you're saying about the Brexit argument.

I can't see the Mirror tweet there now .......not sure why she'd delete it.

He did break lockdown ........ at the very least, at Barnard Castle...... as the Police confirmed. Leaving London, I grant you is in dispute (exceptional circumstance......matter of life or death) but Barnard Castle isn't. As it happened, all the detail (London based also) was discussed ...,,,,just not mentioned in a 50 second summary.

She didn't push a narrative that "Cummings and the government accept he broke the rules and are keeping him despite him being guilty," ....... where on earth did you get that from?

Maitlis did very little - if anything - wrong. The addition of a couple of words (seemingly, or it appears) to accompany the blind loyalty comment would probably have covered it.

You bring up Kinnock and Ali (no Jenrick?) again.......and even if I say OK, I agree, they should go ........ their actions were not those of someone standing alongside the PM, someone who's attended the SAGE meetings, someone who helped formulate the guidelines, and someone who (as a result) should have been an exemplar. Surely, you realise that?

Childcare concerns my arse.

People are outraged because it's Cummings ........ the man (behind the man) in charge. Leadership is all about: Accountability. Example. Integrity. Ownership. Understanding. Neither Cummings nor Johnson have shown any of these.

That's why they probably both deserve to go.

If Maitlis did nothing wrong why has there been 18k complaints in the last 24 hours and BBC issued an apology and agreed she did? They have a special page set up on the complaints page just for her. If it was a deliberate and baseless campaign why would they say sorry for something she obviously didnt do? There has been multiple large complaints about her in the past some they rejected and said she did nothing wrong so they don't just give in every time - they agree the critasism is fair in this instance. They say she broke the charter but - she's not been sacked, I don't think she's appologised herself (correct me if I'm wrong) and she goes back to work as normal when it dies down next week. But those so eager to have Cummings sacked for his mistakes are defending Maitlis for hers and will think the outrage against het is redicolous and confected. The irony isn't the issue it's the redicolous culture being created and once you partake against the opposition the same standards will be held up to you by them and it just escalates to the point that no incident is not sack worthy and no apology is ever accepted. It's a scorched earth tactic that will come back to bite everyone.

You say if she added in a few words it would be fine but a few words make all the difference. Words like 'accused of' 'alleged' are the bread and butter of journalists trying to remain impartial and she lied by omission and removed context. You cant retroactively say she was right by what the police said 2 days later in the sense she wasnt speculating she was stating it already as a proven fact when it literally wasnt. As a reporter you report on the facts you have and at the time the police had only said he hadn't about the main trip. Incidentally the full police statement on this says he did not violate any social distance rules and said 'may have made a minor' violation by driving. But I've heard 'broken rules' loads from the media but again not the bit about not violating social distancing as that takes some of the verocity of the breach. Everything is about framing every detail in as bad as light as possible and remove any counter points that could make it look less bad.

I find it hard to believe you cant see her speach was partisan. Agreeing with it is one thing but surely you can see it wasn't balanced. Maybe im wrong but deep down i suspect you know if it was the other way round and your side were treated the same way you wouldn't say it was fair as you are now. And you'd be right.

You are making double standards to put Cummings and Boris behaviour on a higher pedestal so it can neatly fit into a narrative that Boris and Cummings are bad and Starmer and Labour are good despite them doing the same thing. They are all in the same effective business, they are all paid by the public so they are all expected to give an example. Saying either side can be held to a lower standard is just hypocritcal and bias.

There is a good argument that Cummings should go, some people who like him think he should go. But i think disdain for Boris and Cummings is excessively shaping and escalating the situation beyond what it is. As I said simple way to be fair if you're OK with one side doing it but not the other it's not a position of principle but a political one.

We've done this to death now. Best to call it a day as we see things too differently to find common ground and it can only go round in circles. My opinion throughout was don't sack any of them - they all as bad as each other.

 

[hindleymonwafc]

Whatever traction may / may not have been made because of any perceived misdemeanor by DC and any resulting drift away from the tory popularity will quickly be reversed as normal folk get more and more pissed off with the constant nitpicking and whining of your modern day Labour lefty and go back to Boris in their droves. It's now bordering on insanity and the joke is they dont even know it.

 

[Hampton]

Who knew that carrots needed feeding?

Baby Bio or Donkey Shit will do it

 

[moonay]

Whatever traction may / may not have been made because of any perceived misdemeanor by DC and any resulting drift away from the tory popularity will quickly be reversed as normal folk get more and more pissed off with the constant nitpicking and whining of your modern day Labour lefty and go back to Boris in their droves. It's now bordering on insanity and the joke is they dont even know it.

Have you seen the latest odds for who'll win the next election? Not looking good for BJ ................... looks like the country will be giving him a handjob ....with two fingers.

 

[walgarthjohn]

Thanks for managing to put a smile on our faces John.

And why is that

 

[moonay]

Those complaints were all from "Outraged from Maidenhead", who'd finished mowing the lawn, and needed a subject for their weekly whinge. Read the statement properly. For the umpteenth time, the wording around "blind loyalty" should have been tweaked. Either that, or they should have explained that the intro contained editorial content.


There is plenty of precedent for SpAds resigning when they become "the story".
Scorched earth tactic? ......don't talk daft.

I've explained what words should have been added and to which part. Everything else was provable fact. Not alleged. The Police merely confirmed what any reasonable person knew to be the case (re the BC trip).

KDZ ..... read the other post, the tweet from David Allen Green. That'll put you straight re the legal stuff.

As for double standards ......... they need to be on a higher pedastal. If you can't see that then, well, I don't know what else to tell you. It's why there's no way Trump should still be in office given the stuff he tweets and retweets. When you're in charge, you just can't do that.