Cummings Breaks the Rules.

[Borg Refinery]

https://ibb.co/zGKWTpJ">



 

[papasmurf]

Quite right too but.... it doesn't put a different spin on the braying mob or change what for him was a difficult situation which in the heat of the moment he acted as he saw fit. I still see no justification for the current lynch mob mentality.

He made the rules, he broke them.

[T00ts]

There are seven principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in:



    the civil service

    local government

    the police

    the courts and probation services

    non-departmental public bodies

    health, education, social and care services



The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.



1. Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.



2. Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.



3. Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.



4. Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.



5. Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.



6. Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.



7. Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life">https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ublic-life">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life

Quite right too but.... it doesn't put a different spin on the braying mob or change what for him was a difficult situation which in the heat of the moment he acted as he saw fit. I still see no justification for the current lynch mob mentality.

[patman post]

So those who want Cummings gone are content that the rabble calling for his resignation or dismissal consider that this fair and equitable. No-one is disputing the lack of wisdom in what he did but is the punishment appropriate? No-one else so far caught travelling, including the Scots woman who visited her holiday home twice, has lost her basic income and job. She left the front line advisory role. The Scot Junior Minister resigned in a great flourish but retains his MP status.

This is not justice it's blood. The clamour is for this man to take a complete drop of income status respect and everything in order to satisfy the baying crowd. It punishes his whole family when right or wrong he did what he considered right by his family. He didn't do it on his own. It was a family matter and his wife would have had her needs and no doubt her say too.



I think it's disgraceful.

There are seven principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in:



    the civil service

    local government

    the police

    the courts and probation services

    non-departmental public bodies

    health, education, social and care services



The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.



1. Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.



2. Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.



3. Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.



4. Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.



5. Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.



6. Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.



7. Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life">https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ublic-life">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life

[DeppityDawg]

The issue for me is when class related labels are used as a substitute for what are the actual issues to be solved.  Climate change for example - the issue is whether climate change is happening, how damaging it will be to us all in the long run, and whether we can do anything about it.  Once you make it into a class war, the actual questions are lost, and you are effectively saying that it doesn't matter whether climate change should be solved or not, only that people who don't have much money shouldn't have to consider it because they don't have the time or money to help.  Well that may be fine, or, it may be like saying "Country X has launched nuclear missiles against us but I'm not going to go and launch our defence missiles because I'm too busy right now".  Trading those comments back and forth (of which yes I'm sure I'm guilty sometimes as well) doesn't progress the issue.



You have also argued in the past (long ago on another thread) that anyone who has certain jobs (e.g. works for the BBC or whatever) is automatically an Elite liberal and by implication that their opinion on any and all subjects is irrelevant.  Again, I disagree with this because facts and opinions are separate from personality - I might dislike someone, and I might disagree with 90% of their opinions, but I still might agree with a few of the things they say, and also even if I disliked them it doesn't mean I think I am superior to them, just that I don't like them - to me those are 2 different things, although of course it might come across that way to the other person.  



That said, there are very few people in the world that I really dislike so intensely that I wouldn't listen to their comments and see if I agree with the actual content of what they are saying.



As an aside, as I remember, Gina Miller didn't try to stop Brexit - her challenge was to make sure that Brexit was approved by the sovereign UK parliament and done according to the UK constitution, which is what happened.  As we discussed extensively at the time, even some Brexit supporters should approve of that given that their main reason for wanting Brexit was to make sure UK parliament was fully sovereign.



All that said - your term "moral superiority" does explain it much better where you are coming from I think.

Ok,.there is a lot of stuff there, but we are in danger of drifting away from the topic. To me it gets to the heart of what's wrong with modern politics, but this isn't the place for that discussion, not while all you liberals are baying for Cummings blood anyway  ::



I'll use your post and start a new thread for it later on when I've got a break.

[papasmurf]

I think it's disgraceful.

I don't, he wrote the rules, then he broke them

[Javert]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that Cummings is an elitist, and an arrogant one at that. Maybe he's a narcissist too, I don't know. My point was simple, its that you were happy to roll out a stereotype for someone who (even before this episode) is ideologically different to you, but you get tetchy about the term "liberal elitist", as if it somehow isn't fair to call liberals names. "Liberal elitism" is more about moral superiority than it is about wealth I believe (even though some liberals and socialists are not adverse to a bit of cash either  :: )



Anyway, all this is going somewhat off topic - but just because Cummings is behaving in the time honoured tradition of the entitled elite, it doesn't mean Remain (or any political party or ideology come to that) as a political movement doesn't have its fair share of the entitled and the elite too, is it? Pots and kettles. Gina Millar for arguments sake, spending her money "defending democracy" to overturn a democratic result that went against what she wanted  ::  ::  ::

The issue for me is when class related labels are used as a substitute for what are the actual issues to be solved.  Climate change for example - the issue is whether climate change is happening, how damaging it will be to us all in the long run, and whether we can do anything about it.  Once you make it into a class war, the actual questions are lost, and you are effectively saying that it doesn't matter whether climate change should be solved or not, only that people who don't have much money shouldn't have to consider it because they don't have the time or money to help.  Well that may be fine, or, it may be like saying "Country X has launched nuclear missiles against us but I'm not going to go and launch our defence missiles because I'm too busy right now".  Trading those comments back and forth (of which yes I'm sure I'm guilty sometimes as well) doesn't progress the issue.



You have also argued in the past (long ago on another thread) that anyone who has certain jobs (e.g. works for the BBC or whatever) is automatically an Elite liberal and by implication that their opinion on any and all subjects is irrelevant.  Again, I disagree with this because facts and opinions are separate from personality - I might dislike someone, and I might disagree with 90% of their opinions, but I still might agree with a few of the things they say, and also even if I disliked them it doesn't mean I think I am superior to them, just that I don't like them - to me those are 2 different things, although of course it might come across that way to the other person.  



That said, there are very few people in the world that I really dislike so intensely that I wouldn't listen to their comments and see if I agree with the actual content of what they are saying.



As an aside, as I remember, Gina Miller didn't try to stop Brexit - her challenge was to make sure that Brexit was approved by the sovereign UK parliament and done according to the UK constitution, which is what happened.  As we discussed extensively at the time, even some Brexit supporters should approve of that given that their main reason for wanting Brexit was to make sure UK parliament was fully sovereign.



All that said - your term "moral superiority" does explain it much better where you are coming from I think.

[T00ts]

So those who want Cummings gone are content that the rabble calling for his resignation or dismissal consider that this fair and equitable. No-one is disputing the lack of wisdom in what he did but is the punishment appropriate? No-one else so far caught travelling, including the Scots woman who visited her holiday home twice, has lost her basic income and job. She left the front line advisory role. The Scot Junior Minister resigned in a great flourish but retains his MP status.

This is not justice it's blood. The clamour is for this man to take a complete drop of income status respect and everything in order to satisfy the baying crowd. It punishes his whole family when right or wrong he did what he considered right by his family. He didn't do it on his own. It was a family matter and his wife would have had her needs and no doubt her say too.



I think it's disgraceful.

[Borg Refinery]

Even Peter Bone, the ultra Brexiter wants em' gone.



"The veteran Brexiter Peter Bone said he had not been reassured by Monday's statement. "The rose garden interview just confirmed to me that he had driven up to Durham when we were in a strict lockdown. He absolutely should resign," he said."



As does Steve Baker.



Oh and Douglass Ross, a Scotland office minister resigned.



This isn't over yet, and it's going to be made as huge a deal as possible by many on both the right, left and centre, and Cummings won't even see it coming.



PS: Bishops who dared to criticize Cummings now recv'ing death threats.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52804464">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52804464



Lol, threatening the entirely woolly pzcifist CofE folks now? That's below the deepest depths of the sewerage. I hope the police find those people and promptly taze them in the nuts (or otherwise).

[DeppityDawg]

The point is that Dominic Cummings is a rich man with access to multiple holiday homes and private woodland estates.  He has stirred up hatred of the "Elites" as a way to win election and referendum campaigns, whilst himself being one of the Elites.  This fits because he has proved himself to be an Elitist even by your own definition.  I'm not sure if you watched the full press conference with him yesterday (I wouldn't recommend it because I suspect he was trying to bore them to death but failed).  It was an exercise in Elitism along the lines of "I am exceptional and I've found a loophole that means I would get off in court with my expensive lawyer, therefore I won't follow the same rules I've been telling everyone else to follow, and there's nothing you can do about it.  Feck you, and if you all thought you had to follow the tighter rules that I told my employees (ministers) to say in the press conference, then more fool you."



Now I suppose you have a point in that even if he was a very poor man and had driven to a shed in Durham, it will still be wrong and Elitist what he is doing, but one of the tropes they play on is the idea that these "elites" are taking all the money for themselves and paying only a pittance to the lower paid people.  He is the one using this tactic not me.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that Cummings is an elitist, and an arrogant one at that. Maybe he's a narcissist too, I don't know. My point was simple, its that you were happy to roll out a stereotype for someone who (even before this episode) is ideologically different to you, but you get tetchy about the term "liberal elitist", as if it somehow isn't fair to call liberals names. "Liberal elitism" is more about moral superiority than it is about wealth I believe (even though some liberals and socialists are not adverse to a bit of cash either  :: )



Anyway, all this is going somewhat off topic - but just because Cummings is behaving in the time honoured tradition of the entitled elite, it doesn't mean Remain (or any political party or ideology come to that) as a political movement doesn't have its fair share of the entitled and the elite too, is it? Pots and kettles. Gina Millar for arguments sake, spending her money "defending democracy" to overturn a democratic result that went against what she wanted  ::  ::  ::

[Javert]

To be honest, I wouldn't actually be surprised in some ways if indeed we are being played.



Cummings excuses are so pathetic that it's almost like they are trying to stir up anger on purpose.



It may be Borchester of all people who are correct.  Possibly it's already been decided that Cummings is going to be sacked, but they are trying to spin it out for a few more days so that the public can exhaust all their anger on Cummings and shield Johnson.  If he had resigned immediately, Johnson would have been under fire all this time.



It's either that, or as we've said before, Cummings is the only one who actually decides what the government is going to do so they can't lose him.  Talking or irony, that would be pretty ironic considering he orchestrated a vote to take power away from "unelected bureaucrats".



Earlier I mentioned Boris Johnson's school report.  Cummings history teacher has also spoken about him in the past and compared him to Robespierre, which is weird because I was thinking the same thing earlier.  He wants to destroy the system, but he will only end up creating an even worse one in its place, and stirring up so much hatred and division that it ends up being turned on himself.

[Javert]

Neither is elitism confined to classes or political beliefs. Which was my original point. Your friend was happy to use two spectacular stereotypes in the same sentence that appeared to show he was happy with the pejorative stereotype of "millionaires in mansions", but less happy with the stereotype of "Liberal Elite Middle Classes" because he thinks its...erm...pejorative. Needless to say, he didn't get the irony.



Its a bit like the irony of the Emily Thornberry incident when someone who claimed to be from a council estate background, and was an MP for a party which claimed to represent the working class, but didn't understand why someone had an England flag on their house during a world cup. Know your audience, as comedians say.

The point is that Dominic Cummings is a rich man with access to multiple holiday homes and private woodland estates.  He has stirred up hatred of the "Elites" as a way to win election and referendum campaigns, whilst himself being one of the Elites.  This fits because he has proved himself to be an Elitist even by your own definition.  I'm not sure if you watched the full press conference with him yesterday (I wouldn't recommend it because I suspect he was trying to bore them to death but failed).  It was an exercise in Elitism along the lines of "I am exceptional and I've found a loophole that means I would get off in court with my expensive lawyer, therefore I won't follow the same rules I've been telling everyone else to follow, and there's nothing you can do about it.  Feck you, and if you all thought you had to follow the tighter rules that I told my employees (ministers) to say in the press conference, then more fool you."



Now I suppose you have a point in that even if he was a very poor man and had driven to a shed in Durham, it will still be wrong and Elitist what he is doing, but one of the tropes they play on is the idea that these "elites" are taking all the money for themselves and paying only a pittance to the lower paid people.  He is the one using this tactic not me.

[DeppityDawg]

OK, so then we are in agreement on this point, so the answer to your original question several posts back is:



Yes.



But this still doesn't really explain why you keep bringing up "Liberal Elites" as if it's a killer argument against any challenge.

You really are priceless, Javert. You bought it up, not me. I replied to YOUR post ::

[DeppityDawg]

the understanding of maths is not class dependent

Neither is elitism confined to classes or political beliefs. Which was my original point. Your friend was happy to use two spectacular stereotypes in the same sentence that appeared to show he was happy with the pejorative stereotype of "millionaires in mansions", but less happy with the stereotype of "Liberal Elite Middle Classes" because he thinks its...erm...pejorative. Needless to say, he didn't get the irony.



Its a bit like the irony of the Emily Thornberry incident when someone who claimed to be from a council estate background, and was an MP for a party which claimed to represent the working class, but didn't understand why someone had an England flag on their house during a world cup. Know your audience, as comedians say.

[Javert]

That was mine too. That "across the political spectrum" you will find those who consider themselves "better", or "more suited to lead", or "more qualified to judge the truth" and so on. Not that you read other peoples posts properly (if at all), before you go on to post a reply to a whole different set of conclusions you made up yourself.

OK, so then we are in agreement on this point, so the answer to your original question several posts back is:



Yes.



But this still doesn't really explain why you keep bringing up "Liberal Elites" as if it's a killer argument against any challenge.