|
Post by naughtyfox on May 25, 2020 4:09:35 GMT
I'm sorry if it offends the easily offended on here but unless there is a damn sight more evidence of serious wrongdoing than the crap and fake(d) news that has been spouted on here I think F off is a good reply. and just for those who are screaming about how terribly Britain is doing compared with every other country they should look at the deaths per million population......... UK 542, Italy 542, Spain 615, Belgium 801, San Marino 1,238. 1. How much more evidence do you need, even his wife admits they drove from London to Durham with the two of them in a car sick with coronavirus and their poor child forced to breathe in the air they were expelling from their Covid-19-ridden lungs. This is child abuse, not 'child care'. 2. Finland - 60 per million. 542 for the UK is not 'better'.
|
|
|
Post by patty on May 25, 2020 5:23:48 GMT
I'm sorry if it offends the easily offended on here but unless there is a damn sight more evidence of serious wrongdoing than the crap and fake(d) news that has been spouted on here I think F off is a good reply. and just for those who are screaming about how terribly Britain is doing compared with every other country they should look at the deaths per million population......... UK 542, Italy 542, Spain 615, Belgium 801, San Marino 1,238. 1. How much more evidence do you need, even his wife admits they drove from London to Durham with the two of them in a car sick with coronavirus and their poor child forced to breathe in the air they were expelling from their Covid-19-ridden lungs. This is child abuse, not 'child care'. Its rare I bother with your posts This irritates Their son would have been part of their household..driving in a car with him with them both affected with Coronavirus is not..as I see it child abuse..don't be so ridiculous..Chances are he could have given them it/have the virus as well, most kiddies slight or no symptoms..... I could rant on...but I won't.. nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 25, 2020 6:41:27 GMT
Part of me thinks this is a storm in a teacup. Cummings isn't in the government, people all over the place have broken the rules, so who cares? It's just another example of a load of angry socialists who are unable to engage in any 'full picture argument' to support their cause and instead, pick on trivial matters where the general deficiency of their argument can't be exposed.
I thought this way until Johnson said it was OK because Cummings acted on his instincts. There are laws and there are instincts. Often laws follow instincts, instincts that when carried out reflect society's desire for people to act nicely towards each other. Not so in the case of covid though. In this case the very purpose of the laws that were introduced was to supress instincts in order to attempt to beat the virus. It was understood by the population that this would be time limited. Once the virus was controlled adequately they would be able to once again act instinctively, within the parameters of established laws.
It wasn't instinctive for people to sit in waiting rooms while their relatives died alone. Neither was it instinctive to not be able to attend the funeral of a relative, or close friend. It wasn't instinctive to stay in all the time, cooped up like an animal, when the instinct was to go outside and live life a little.
So at the moment there are two possibilities: follow your instincts, or follow the law.
Johnson made it clear yesterday that while the law existed there were exceptions. It's not clear whether 'very important people' are exempted from the law, or all people with children, or whether the privilege is reserved only for 'very important people' with children. I could witter on about this being yet another example of the segmentation of a society that purports or certainly aims to be 'equal' but I won't. Suffice to say that it's a disgrace, one that Johnson may well live to regret.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2020 6:55:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 25, 2020 7:21:04 GMT
Johnson made it clear yesterday that while the law existed there were exceptions. It's not clear whether 'very important people' are exempted from the law, or all people with children, or whether the privilege is reserved only for 'very important people' with children. I could witter on about this being yet another example of the segmentation of a society that purports or certainly aims to be 'equal' but I won't. Suffice to say that it's a disgrace, one that Johnson may well live to regret. It's called proportionality.
Did he think he was doing the right thing for his family ?
Was what he was doing putting himself, his family or the public to any greater risk?
Many people have done simillar things in defiance of the regulations including some on here as a considered and ballanced risk.
It's called looking at things in perspective
as regards "different segments of society"
"Rules are for the guidance of a wise man and the obedience of idiots" has a lot of truth ....... far greater scorn should have been poured on the group of about 20 people having a proper party, drinking, mingling and launching boats and generally playing silly buggers on the river during lock down. That kind of behaviour could not be described an acceptable exception. Let's face it there was a hell of a lot of that kind of idiocy going on ....... and the two cannot be equated The only difference for Dominic Cummins and many, many others is that he is a known and recognisable target that the press can attack
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 25, 2020 7:29:18 GMT
Johnson made it clear yesterday that while the law existed there were exceptions. It's not clear whether 'very important people' are exempted from the law, or all people with children, or whether the privilege is reserved only for 'very important people' with children. I could witter on about this being yet another example of the segmentation of a society that purports or certainly aims to be 'equal' but I won't. Suffice to say that it's a disgrace, one that Johnson may well live to regret. It's called proportionality.
Did he think he was doing the right thing for his family ?
Was what he was doing putting himself, his family or the public to any greater risk?
Many people have done simillar things in defiance of the regulations including some on here as a considered and ballanced risk.
It's called looking at things in perspective
as regards "different segments of society"
"Rules are for the guidance of a wise man and the obedience of idiots" has a lot of truth ....... far greater scorn should have been poured on the group of about 20 people having a proper party, drinking, mingling and launching boats and generally playing silly buggers on the river during lock down. That kind of behaviour could not be described an acceptable exception. Let's face it there was a hell of a lot of that kind of idiocy going on ....... and the two cannot be equated The only difference for Dominic Cummins and many, many others is that he is a known and recognisable target that the press can attack
OK I take your point but the question still remains, the proportionality you refer to, does it apply to all, or only 'very important people'?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 25, 2020 7:55:27 GMT
Dom's wife said:
" Dom couldn't get out of bed. 'Day in day out for ten days he had a high fever, with spasms that made the muscles lump and twitch in his legs. 'He could breathe but only in a limited shallow way. After a week we reached peak corona uncertainty, day six is a turning point I was told, when you either get better or head for ICU. Was Dom fighting off the bug or was he heading for a ventilator, who knew? 'I sat on his bed staring at his chest trying to count his breaths per minute. The little oxygen reader we'd bought on Amazon indicated he should be in hospital"
Yet he was well enough to drive from London to Durham? I thought it was illegal to drive if unwell.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 25, 2020 7:58:28 GMT
This morning the Bishops have been piling in too, accompanied by the Daily Mail, naughtyfox can you share the front page with us. Why the secrecy over some of the facts. Did he visit Barnard Castle, did he stop at services on his journey? Fair enough that some of you are supporting Dom, blind party loyalty can be a good thing, it's misplaced in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 25, 2020 8:01:32 GMT
It's called proportionality.
Did he think he was doing the right thing for his family ?
Was what he was doing putting himself, his family or the public to any greater risk?
Many people have done simillar things in defiance of the regulations including some on here as a considered and ballanced risk.
It's called looking at things in perspective
as regards "different segments of society"
"Rules are for the guidance of a wise man and the obedience of idiots" has a lot of truth ....... far greater scorn should have been poured on the group of about 20 people having a proper party, drinking, mingling and launching boats and generally playing silly buggers on the river during lock down. That kind of behaviour could not be described an acceptable exception. Let's face it there was a hell of a lot of that kind of idiocy going on ....... and the two cannot be equated The only difference for Dominic Cummins and many, many others is that he is a known and recognisable target that the press can attack
OK I take your point but the question still remains, the proportionality you refer to, does it apply to all, or only 'very important people'? It seems to have been applied fairly generally by the old Bill (although maybe a trifle haphazardly) They stop you and ask you what you are doing, if you have a reasonable excuse they let you continue, if they don't they turn you back .... if you don't comply they issue you a fixed penalty ......... To a large extent it depends on the common sense of the police (agree not something always in evidence)
Whatever, the punishments for transgression are fairly mild ...... certainly not being hounded by paparazzi, slagged off by newspapers and demands made that you should lose your job. That is of course if you are not someone the press can target.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2020 8:07:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 25, 2020 8:12:06 GMT
Yet he was well enough to drive from London to Durham? I thought it was illegal to drive if unwell. You really are a idiotic shit stirring tosser ..... when he drove he had no symptoms, it was his wife who was beginning to show them
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 25, 2020 8:13:23 GMT
No - I have spent well over an hour making an 'English Breakfast' and haven't had a chance to run through anything yet, apart from placing the Google Street View Man on bits of road in Lapland whilst eating, as I am searching for suitable places to stop and sleep in the car / sleep in the tent. I have found two P places (parking areas beside rivers) and a 'laavu' with benches beside a bridge across a lake. I have done this kind of research before and sometimes it pays off when we're in unknown territory and looking for a safe spot to stay overnight. And back to work in 20 minutes. By the way, this came to mind and I checked it out - Santa's Workshop (open every day all year! -normally) is CLOSED due to the CORONAVIRUS situation. santaclausvillage.info/fi/ Hadn't planned on going there at all, just curious. I went to annoy Santa 7 years ago:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2020 8:14:33 GMT
Does anyone really care, apart from journalists ?
Accused, called to account, answered, criticised, damned and now the world moves on.
I struggle to find the words to describe how little I care.
I have to say again, if the opposition parties 'cause celebre' of the pandemic is whether a government adviser should have driven to Durham to isolate near family ... the government must have performed admirably .... and how likely is that?
This is a journalistic feeding frenzy.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 25, 2020 8:18:01 GMT
Does anyone really care, apart from journalists ? Accused, called to account, answered, criticised, damned and now the world moves on. I struggle to find the words to describe how little I care.
I have to say again, if the opposition parties 'cause celebre' of the pandemic is whether a government adviser should have driven to Durham to isolate near family ... the government must have performed admirably .... and how likely is that? This is a journalistic feeding frenzy. Rog Yet you managed to find 79. Well done!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 25, 2020 8:19:30 GMT
Yet he was well enough to drive from London to Durham? I thought it was illegal to drive if unwell. You really are a idiotic shit stirring tosser ..... when he drove he had no symptoms, it was his wife who was beginning to show them So he was fit to look after them both then, just as many other unprivileged people had to. Perhaps being a carer for his own family was beneath his station? JohnV should Boris be honest and open when asked reasonable questions about the journey and Dom's wanderings?
|
|