Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

Hancock has emerged FYI:
 

I know how ill coronavirus makes you. It was entirely right for Dom Cummings to find childcare for his toddler, when both he and his wife were getting ill.
 
Charlie Brooker
 
I’d say you just torpedoed your own credibility but let’s face it nothing could hit a target that small.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sheer hypocrisy and contempt for the British public from this cruel Downing Street den of power-hungry parasites has never been more blatantly obvious than it is today. 

People have watched their family members die over video call, a 13 year old boy died alone with his family banned from visiting, and on a less stark level we have all greatly missed our family and friends. Cummings had Coronavirus symptoms, the law is to stay at home - it couldn't be any more clear. 

The man is a disgusting excuse for a political advisor, and has now openly told us that he doesn't care whether this looks bad or not - meanwhile the Chief Propagandist Kuenssberg relies on her suspiciously anonymous government supporting "source". 

If it wasn't for the need to STAY AT HOME then people should be piling into Downing St as we speak and hauling the man out to dry. One rule for the public. Another rule for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Homer said:

Hancock has emerged FYI:
 

I know how ill coronavirus makes you. It was entirely right for Dom Cummings to find childcare for his toddler, when both he and his wife were getting ill.
 
Charlie Brooker
 
I’d say you just torpedoed your own credibility but let’s face it nothing could hit a target that small.

So now the government is going to have to pretend that the official policy is that all parents can go to a relatives house if one of them comes down with the virus, in case both of them get it because the symptoms are so bad, just to cover up for Cummings. How on earth is that workable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Homer said:

People now point out on Twitter that Cummings' wife's brother lives in London

The story is clearly a pack of lies, as he said last night he went to his parents, then when that got a bad reaction changed it to his sister, then when people were outraged about him driving while Ill, changed that element to' before he became ill', which doesn't remotely tally with his wife's pack of lies in the spectator article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jparx said:

I think one of the firsts questions later should be "can you confirm the guidance for the British people is now that they don't have to quarantine themselves if they have covid systems, and are encouraged to drop any children off with relatives for care while they recover?"

Laura keunsberg doesn’t seem to do briefings at the weekend ... there is hope of getting something decent ... it should be a feeding frenzy for journalists today ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

So now the government is going to have to pretend that the official policy is that all parents can go to a relatives house if one of them comes down with the virus, in case both of them get it because the symptoms are so bad, just to cover up for Cummings. How on earth is that workable? 

But I don't have any kids... but if my wife and I were both (potentially) too ill to leave the house, who would do our shopping? If one of us gets ill , how come I'm not allowed to drive from London to Bristol to my family? What is the age limit on being allowed to have a relative shop for you? Just because I'm 43, I still have to eat.

Edited by Homer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all manner of interesting because what he actually did, if done correctly, wasn't unreasonable. It was, however, against the law. Against the law because it was assumed (correctly) that too many exceptions would confuse people and result in people doing stuff they shouldn't.

The explanation here is literally "the general public are too stupid to understand nuance, but this is a case of nuance".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

This is all manner of interesting because what he actually did, if done correctly, wasn't unreasonable. It was, however, against the law. Against the law because it was assumed (correctly) that too many exceptions would confuse people and result in people doing stuff they shouldn't.

The explanation here is literally "the general public are too stupid to understand nuance, but this is a case of nuance".

What bit of travelling to his elderly parents with coronavirus wasn’t unreasonable ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, basicminds said:

Yes this would get me off the sofa too! My worry is that the tories will get away with the poor handling of all this mess and just be given excuses.  Been impressed by Starmer, hopefully he will pick this apart.  I do think it is odd that they have not said he needs to go yet but I wonder if that is to keep the story going for longer and continue the pressure on government.  

Because you don’t go full guns over the initial issue it’s normally one of the lies to cover the initial rule breach that gets everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Laura keunsberg doesn’t seem to do briefings at the weekend ... there is hope of getting something decent ... it should be a feeding frenzy for journalists today ..

They'll just put the Secretary for Park Benches out or someone equally pointless sent on with a script they can't deviate from. At 4 not 5, so plenty will miss it. That seems to be how the weekend ones go most of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

This is all manner of interesting because what he actually did, if done correctly, wasn't unreasonable. It was, however, against the law. Against the law because it was assumed (correctly) that too many exceptions would confuse people and result in people doing stuff they shouldn't.

The explanation here is literally "the general public are too stupid to understand nuance, but this is a case of nuance".

Here we go. How wasn’t this unreasonable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

They'll just put the Secretary for Park Benches out or someone equally pointless sent on with a script they can't deviate from. At 4 not 5, so plenty will miss it. That seems to be how the weekend ones go most of the time. 

yep theres only 2 of them at the weekend also .... Dominic cummings frantically looking for the wifi box plug ...

Edited by crazyfool1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

What bit of travelling to his elderly parents with coronavirus wasn’t unreasonable ? 

If it's true that his sister was taking care of the kids and none of them have contact with the parents then it seems reasonable. I doubt his family are in a two bed council house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If it's true that his sister was taking care of the kids and none of them have contact with the parents then it seems reasonable. I doubt his family are in a two bed council house.

250 mile journey with a toddler, do you not think they may have had to stop off once, maybe twice? Last I heard service station workers aren't immune to Coronavirus. This is just one amongst a number of reasons that his actions are incredibly unreasonable - the fact his family are likely to have a big fancy house is entirely irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

If it's true that his sister was taking care of the kids and none of them have contact with the parents then it seems reasonable. I doubt his family are in a two bed council house.

if thats true hes travelling across the country with his brother in London ... filling up with petrol and putting his sister at risk along with anyone else she comes into contact with .... he was the architect of the say at home message .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Here we go. How wasn’t this unreasonable?

Because it could be done in such a way as not to put anyone else at risk. And I'm okay assuming it was done that way. We can call Cummings a psychopath but the only reason to do what he did was to ensure his kid was looked after, so I find it hard to believe he went "my family might catch it and die but I don't care". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Because it could be done in such a way as not to put anyone else at risk. And I'm okay assuming it was done that way. We can call Cummings a psychopath but the only reason to do what he did was to ensure his kid was looked after, so I find it hard to believe he went "my family might catch it and die but I don't care". 

He has relatives in London, he works in London. I refuse to accept there were no alternatives to breaking temporary laws put in place to save lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...