BJ doesn't budge

[Javert]

"Whataboutery"? "Those who don't want to be held to account"? And what is it that I don't wish to be "held to account" for Javert? Wtf are you on about? I don't give a sh*t what happens to him?



You meanwhile seem pretty confident that his wife is also guilty of something as well and the Attorney General too? I haven't followed the story that closely, so forgive me if I don't clap along with this ****fest, but I take it you (or someone) have some compelling evidence of this?

Both Cummings and his wife published long tear jerking articles in the Spectator magazine about a month ago about how terrible it had been suffering from Coronavirus in London and all the personal suffering behind it.



Of course, the articles were carefully written so that they left out the truth rather than deliberately telling a lie - they never mentioned that they had left London, and at the end said "We emerged from lockdown into the London sunshine".  There's all sorts in that article where, to user their parlance, any reasonable person would think it was partly written with the motive of a cover up.  Keep in mind that these are not people who usually go out baring their souls about every little cough and cold they have.



So - if I wanted to really take it to the logical end, I would say you could make a case that they are both guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice, which is actually a very serious crime much more serious than a mere lock down breach.  Unfortunately this can't be tested because the police chose to take no action on the breach itself.  Most likely they would get away with it anyway because no crime had been reported or was under investigation at the time the article was written, so they would get off on a technicality.



The attorney general posted on Twitter supporting Cummings, when she is in a special constitutional position.  Under no circumstances should she be tweeting in support (or against) of a person accused of a legal misdemeanour - she should stay out of it.  By posting that, she put the police in a difficult situation.



Quite a few lawyers have commented that in any prior government, should have been forced to resign for that Tweet, especially when the Durham police effectively said that yes he has committed a crime (the fact that they chose not to take any action is irrelevant and may have been influenced by her Tweet, which is the point).



So, based on all previous norms of the UK, she should resign.  Welcome to the banana republic UK period.



In fact - all of the ministers who tweeted in support of (or actually against) Cummings should not have commented based on past precedent once the police were investigating.

[B0ycey]

(Emily Mateless) is a fine bloke imo.

 :shock:  :shock:  :shock:



Is that an exclusive?

[DeppityDawg]

You have stolen our dreams, with your empty words etc.



In any case, she (Emily Mateless) is a fine bloke imo. But she should've known that peopke would be highly annoyed at her for daring to voice an opinion, as folks like Andrew Neil are "scrupulously impartial" and because they say it enough, people tend to believe it. I guess Emily hasn't been going golfing in the correct circles enough..Untberg has, she's one of the favoured few..

Sssshhhh. You'll have Javert claiming "whataboutery"......no wait....   ::

[DeppityDawg]

Also just to point out that although you see yourself as very balanced, this is "whataboutery" which is a favourite tactic of those who don't want to be held to account.

"Whataboutery"? "Those who don't want to be held to account"? And what is it that I don't wish to be "held to account" for Javert? Wtf are you on about? I don't give a shit what happens to him?



You meanwhile seem pretty confident that his wife is also guilty of something as well and the Attorney General too? I haven't followed the story that closely, so forgive me if I don't clap along with this ****fest, but I take it you (or someone) have some compelling evidence of this?

[Javert]

Javert, at no point have I defended Cummings actions, and tbh, if he gets sacked he'll have had it coming. It won't bother me two fecks. What I find amusing is all you liberal remainers falling over yourselves to attribute some dreadful, criminal action to him on a par with eating babies alive. Ironically, none of you were half as vitriolic about Ferguson, who also failed to do as the rest of us were told to do, and it was his fecking "model" that they are all panicking over. Its pathetic.



And we all know why a load of butt-hurt remainers, still smarting because they didn't get their way, want to see the back of the person widely regarded as the architect of Johnson the "Get Brexit done" Prime Ministers election, don't we.



You're all like a load of screeching harpies.

Alright, but as I keep saying, he could have potentially headed this off by at least admitting that what he did was not advisable when seen in the cold light of day.  Instead, he tried to cover it up by getting his wife to publish misleading accounts in other journals in the meantime.



As for Ferguson - if you go back through, my position was consistent - I said that he should not have been forced to resign but should have apologised, and I say the same for Cummings.  



For the 100th time, the issues is not so much what he did, but the deliberate cover up, followed by the attempt to re-write the UK constitution on the basis that if the police say a government insider broke the law, and the government insider says "no I didn't", the matter is closed.  That's a pretty dangerous precendent.



And we haven't even discussed the attorney general's actions yet which were arguably even more of a resigning offence than anything Cummings did.



Also just to point out that although you see yourself as very balanced, this is "whataboutery" which is a favourite tactic of those who don't want to be held to account.

[Javert]

Javert, at no point have I defended Cummings actions, and tbh, if he gets sacked he'll have had it coming. It won't bother me two fecks. What I find amusing is all you liberal remainers falling over yourselves to attribute some dreadful, criminal action to him on a par with eating babies alive. Ironically, none of you were half as vitriolic about Ferguson, who also failed to do as the rest of us were told to do, and it was his fecking "model" that they are all panicking over. Its pathetic.



And we all know why a load of butt-hurt remainers, still smarting because they didn't get their way, want to see the back of the person widely regarded as the architect of Johnson the "Get Brexit done" Prime Ministers election, don't we.



You're all like a load of screeching harpies.

Alright, but as I keep saying, he could have potentially headed this off by at least admitting that what he did was not advisable when seen in the cold light of day.  Instead, he tried to cover it up by getting his wife to publish misleading accounts in other journals in the meantime.



As for Ferguson - if you go back through, my position was consistent - I said that he should not have been forced to resign but should have apologised, and I say the same for Cummings.  



For the 100th time, the issues is not so much what he did, but the deliberate cover up, followed by the attempt to re-write the UK constitution on the basis that if the police say a government insider broke the law, and the government insider says "no I didn't", the matter is closed.  That's a pretty dangerous precendent.



And we haven't even discussed the attorney general's actions yet which were arguably even more of a resigning offence than anything Cummings did.



Also just to point out that although you see yourself as very balanced, this is "whataboutery" which is a favourite tactic of those who don't want to be held to account.

[Borg Refinery]

You have stolen our dreams, with your empty words etc.



In any case, she (Emily Mateless) is a fine bloke imo. But she should've known that peopke would be highly annoyed at her for daring to voice an opinion, as folks like Andrew Neil are "scrupulously impartial" and because they say it enough, people tend to believe it. I guess Emily hasn't been going golfing in the correct circles enough..Untberg has, she's one of the favoured few..

[DeppityDawg]

No because I am not the BBC I am just an individual person.



Presenters on the BBC are supposed to maintain certain standards of impartiality in their own comments.



So, if she said that to me in the pub at night, I would 100% agree and buy her a drink.  However, I can see why the BBC might think it overstepped the mark.



I stand by my post, but I'll add one further complication.  



Some of this hinges on whether newsnight is a pure "News" show like the 6 o' clock news, or is it more of a current affairs / political commentary program.



If it's the latter, than you have a higher case for arguing that Maitliss should not have been pulled up, considering that Andrew Neil has not be censured for very similar rants in the past on his political interview show.



As I allude, it's also a balance of "factual" reporting versus opinion.  Really, given that Cummings himself had admitted breaking the law (i.e. he described carrying out specific actions, which he admitted to doing, which are against the law), it's factual to say that this happened.



If we allow a situation where someone can go on TV, describe actions that they admit taking which are against the law, and then say "but I didn't break the law", where does that leave us?



According to some, the BBC should have to report that this person didn't break the law as it's a "valid opinion" - well its' not - he broke the law plain for all to see.



The issue here is more that she arguably allowed her own personal anger to show through.



Edit:  Also just to add one rather obvious point - Maitliss is not part of the team that created the lock down rules and should set an additional example.  I would think that as a past Soldier you should know the importance of leaders being prepared to lead by example.

Javert, at no point have I defended Cummings actions, and tbh, if he gets sacked he'll have had it coming. It won't bother me two fecks. What I find amusing is all you liberal remainers falling over yourselves to attribute some dreadful, criminal action to him on a par with eating babies alive. Ironically, none of you were half as vitriolic about Ferguson, who also failed to do as the rest of us were told to do, and it was his fecking "model" that they are all panicking over. Its pathetic.



And we all know why a load of butt-hurt remainers, still smarting because they didn't get their way, want to see the back of the person widely regarded as the architect of Johnson the "Get Brexit done" Prime Ministers election, don't we.



You're all like a load of screeching harpies.

[Javert]

That whole post could have been condensed to one line. You and all the other limp liberals on here too.



No surprises there then. Are the pubs open yet?

No because I am not the BBC I am just an individual person.



Presenters on the BBC are supposed to maintain certain standards of impartiality in their own comments.



So, if she said that to me in the pub at night, I would 100% agree and buy her a drink.  However, I can see why the BBC might think it overstepped the mark.



I stand by my post, but I'll add one further complication.  



Some of this hinges on whether newsnight is a pure "News" show like the 6 o' clock news, or is it more of a current affairs / political commentary program.



If it's the latter, than you have a higher case for arguing that Maitliss should not have been pulled up, considering that Andrew Neil has not be censured for very similar rants in the past on his political interview show.



As I allude, it's also a balance of "factual" reporting versus opinion.  Really, given that Cummings himself had admitted breaking the law (i.e. he described carrying out specific actions, which he admitted to doing, which are against the law), it's factual to say that this happened.



If we allow a situation where someone can go on TV, describe actions that they admit taking which are against the law, and then say "but I didn't break the law", where does that leave us?



According to some, the BBC should have to report that this person didn't break the law as it's a "valid opinion" - well its' not - he broke the law plain for all to see.



The issue here is more that she arguably allowed her own personal anger to show through.



Edit:  Also just to add one rather obvious point - Maitliss is not part of the team that created the lock down rules and should set an additional example.  I would think that as a past Soldier you should know the importance of leaders being prepared to lead by example.

[DeppityDawg]

....



- I 100% agree with everything she said

That whole post could have been condensed to one line. You and all the other limp liberals on here too.



No surprises there then. Are the pubs open yet?

[Javert]

Can I just ask if posters on here who are calling for Cummings to be binned (and I don't necessarily disagree), will also be calling for Emily Maitlis to be sacked for abusing her position (at our expense) as an "unbiased" (.... ::  ::  ::  ::  ::  :: ) presenter for a national broadcaster to give us HER opinions instead of the news?

Can I ask have you watched the Maitliss monologue and if so which particular parts of it do you think were wrong?



I have to be honest that I take a slightly different view than what I'm sure you call the "liberal leftie" pile on.



- Watching the opening of that show, I'd say almost all of it is factual and spot on, but there are a couple of adjectives she used near the end where she arguably stepped into stating that she knew the personal motives of the PM and Cummings, and questioned their character as her own personal opinion,  I suspect that is the part that the BBC bosses took exception to rather than the opening factual statements.  I wouldn't be surprised if we get a detailed comment on that later on.  In my view if she had just removed 2 words from near the end of that speech, she would've got away with it.

I suspect that in about a month we will get a detailed ruling.  It will effectively say that 99% of what she said was correct, and just a word or two were wrong.  Everyone will claim victory....



- I 100% agree with everything she said.



- I can see how, based on the BBC's past decisions and process, they might think this went to far based on my point above.



- It's not really clear who is being punished here - unless Maitliss went off script, it's actually the editor of the show who is responsible for what is said in the opening announcements and not her.



- She says that she asked for the night off and was not removed from the show the next day.  I have no reason to disbelieve this.



- Should she be fired?  No - she has not tried to claim that she didn't say that, nor has she tried to cover it up by deleting the master tapes or publishing a story that it was someone else who forced her to say it, or that she was saying it for her children or suchlike.  So no she should not be fired.  As you know my starting position was that nobody should be fired for a single infraction of lock down rules or anything like that, but they should at least say sorry and admit they made a mistake.

[Javert]

Well it would appear that the Durham police are saying that he MIGHT have broken the law by going to Barnard Castle, under the current circumstances, but they are NOT charging him because it would be considered a minor offence....

I personally believe they SHOULD have charged him, even  if they thought it was a minor offence....unless of course they do not normally charge people for 'minor offences.

 Otherwise, it tends to look as if such reasonably high profile persons like Cummings, can be  afforded 'special consideration,'(maybe because he appears to be indispensable to the PM), and that just indicates that the laws perhaps don't apply equally to those who are  in privileged positions, so they can be, and are  afforded 'some leeway'.

Couple of points:



- Apparently the police often use the word "might" in statements like this and it doesn't necessarily mean what us laypeople think.  Generally it means that the police think he most definitely did break the law, but they have to acknowledge that it's not actually their decision to finalise that, and the final determination would rest with the courts (if Cummings had been fined and then chosen to contest the fine).



- The police generally have not been issuing fines or action on a first offence, so at first glace this is consistent.  However, what I would add is that they didn't explain why Cummings original trip to Durham was within the rules and not a breach of the law.  They also didn't say what they felt was his "reasonable excuse".  I have to say that's the bit I find most surprising in the police statement - that they categorically stated his trip north to Durham was legal.  I have to say I'm scratching my head on that one.  



We also have to keep in mind that there is the actual law as passed by parliament, and the "guidelines" advocated by the government.  He was clearly breaching his own guidelines all the way through even by his own account.  As regards the law, I would actually argue that his trip to Durham broke the law and I'd love to get a more detailed explanation form Durham police as to what they think his reasonable excuse was.  The only thing I could think of that would sway things would be if there are private circumstances about his child or suchlike that have not been made public, but even then I'm struggling to imagine the scenario that would justify this trip in the cold light of day.



But again to stress - the original mistakes were not the big issue - it's the subsequent cover up.

[johnofgwent]

The news item I heard said that he did not break any rule on the way to Durham, but it was a slight infringement to drive to the castle.

I only saw the headline that he had "infringed" the rules but they were not going to do anything about it.



I suppose it is somewhat more two faced that none of the people fined for doing what he did are going to have those fines quoshed. An MP stated it should be looked at, but some nameless shithead later released a press statement that there would be no review.

[DeppityDawg]

Yes. The Sport, everyones favourite "go to" bait room read. Although "read" is pushing it a bit.

[Borg Refinery]

She seems more your type cromwell.  :-P

Do they...feck me why wasn't I told...in that case I want more tits! (and I don't mean Cummings either)  ::  ::  ::

I think the sunday sport is the greatest newspaper ever made. Whoever runs that place has the best humour I've seen in newspapers.  



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_u5jpyVwAAiA2N?format=jpg&name=large">



I would give all the other newspapers' subsidies to them instead.