When will this shit end?

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, fatyeti24 said:

The year is 2020.

I’d been trying to forget 2020  ... It’s one way of getting herd immunity ... give us some rules and then blatantly flout them ... 

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

I’d been trying to forget 2020  ... It’s one way of getting herd immunity ... give us some rules and then blatantly flout them ... 

I don't think you're a million miles away with that, fits right in with their shadow strategy.

[Ayrshire Chris]

17 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Surely there is no way they can’t sack him.... 

As my old dad  used to say about the Tories,  you  couldn’t mark their necks with a blowtorch

[fatyeti24]

9 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I don't think you're a million miles away with that, fits right in with their shadow strategy.

It's also *a way* of coming out of lockdown gradually.

[DeanoL]

3 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Rubbish. He broke the law,

Yes he did. Absolutely, we can prove that, good line of attack.

Quote

 

put more people under unnecessary risk

 

Is he? Can you prove that Ozanne? Because we, the government press office have evidence that showed he went door to car to door without actually encountering anyone else, so we can prove you are wrong, you're just politicizing this and spreading fake news.

"Well even if he didn't see anyone else he's still breaking the law"

Yes but we've already discredited you, we've proven you have lied once, you clearly can't be relied on. Who are you to say he broke the law.

That's how this shit plays out. It's how it always plays out. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Cummings broke the law. That's all we know. We don't know if he put people at risk or not. It's certainly possible to break the rules and not put anyone at risk. 

If we get caught up on arguing the toss over whether he actually put anyone at risk or not, we lose the core point that this exposes: that he believes himself above the law. That the lockdown rules were just for people the government thought were too thick to understand how the virus actually spreads. That's essentially what they are saying. It's crucial we focus on that, and not just on "Cummings may have infected people" that we can't prove, and even if we could, that just makes the point that Cummings is a c**t and he gets fired.

What's happening now, with the cabinet rallying around him saying that "actually the rules aren't the rules" is far bigger and more significant, and one of the most Tory things this goverment has done yet. It's crucial to hold that entire attitude to the fire, not just Cummings.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 hour ago, Northtim said:

That’s quite likely.

We’ve followed the lockdown vary carefully but spoke to my mum earlier who I haven’t seen since Feb and she is keen on meeting up to see grandkids and walk dogs next week. We would keep 2m apart and all of us are healthy . Her quote was If Cummings can do that what the hell.

If we were in N Ireland or Scotland as I understand it small groups are allowed to get together like this so why not I guess. So fuming about Cummings I’m not feeling like sticking to the less sensible rules now. Must be many others thinking the same.

I think that’s ok though anyway? I met my mum for the first time since lockdown last week for a dog walk staying 2m apart. Your family unit meeting m your mum in an outside space, is as understand it perfectly fine? Unless she’s older/ in an at risk group?

[WestCountryGirl]

59 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

So close to throwing my laptop across the room at this slimy Mail c**t.

I actually had to go and smash a bottle in the back yard. I've been rage tidying my house ever since.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yes he did. Absolutely, we can prove that, good line of attack.

Is he? Can you prove that Ozanne? Because we, the government press office have evidence that showed he went door to car to door without actually encountering anyone else, so we can prove you are wrong, you're just politicizing this and spreading fake news.

"Well even if he didn't see anyone else he's still breaking the law"

Yes but we've already discredited you, we've proven you have lied once, you clearly can't be relied on. Who are you to say he broke the law.

That's how this shit plays out. It's how it always plays out. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Cummings broke the law. That's all we know. We don't know if he put people at risk or not. It's certainly possible to break the rules and not put anyone at risk. 

If we get caught up on arguing the toss over whether he actually put anyone at risk or not, we lose the core point that this exposes: that he believes himself above the law. That the lockdown rules were just for people the government thought were too thick to understand how the virus actually spreads. That's essentially what they are saying. It's crucial we focus on that, and not just on "Cummings may have infected people" that we can't prove, and even if we could, that just makes the point that Cummings is a c**t and he gets fired.

What's happening now, with the cabinet rallying around him saying that "actually the rules aren't the rules" is far bigger and more significant, and one of the most Tory things this goverment has done yet. It's crucial to hold that entire attitude to the fire, not just Cummings.

For a start ‘we’ haven’t discredited me, you’ve typed words from the government press office. There is no collective we here, it just seems to be you arguing this point.

 

You do realise we focus on more than one point at once don’t you, or do you think we are all thick to do that?

 

He’s added unnecessary risk by going outside and travelling. Even if he didn’t come into contact with anyone there is still a very slight added element of risk. He could’ve touched something, breathed on something or even not been as diligent washing his hands. The only way to keep 100% of the risk down is to NOT GO OUTSIDE. It is factual if you go outside there’s an extra layer of risk.

 

Equally if what he’s done in your mind is so bad why are you arguing a defence for him in any of this, thus giving the illusion you support his actions?

 

[DeanoL]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

He’s added unnecessary risk by going outside and travelling. Even if he didn’t come into contact with anyone there is still a very slight added element of risk. He could’ve touched something, breathed on something or even not been as diligent washing his hands. The only way to keep 100% of the risk down is to NOT GO OUTSIDE. It is factual if you go outside there’s an extra layer of risk.

 

Equally if what he’s done in your mind is so bad why are you arguing a defence for him in any of this, thus giving the illusion you support his actions?

 

Garage into car, drives to other house into garage. Doesn't even go outside.

And again, the law isn't "don't go outside".

I don't think what he did was morally bad, is all. He's a c**t for sure and always has been, but I don't think this is a moral issue, and we get into debating that you lose sight of the real issue, which is he broke the law. A law he helped create. 

And yeah, there's only actually space for one headline here, that's how news stories work. They don't account for nuance either.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Garage into car, drives to other house into garage. Doesn't even go outside.

And again, the law isn't "don't go outside".

I don't think what he did was morally bad, is all. He's a c**t for sure and always has been, but I don't think this is a moral issue, and we get into debating that you lose sight of the real issue, which is he broke the law. A law he helped create. 

And yeah, there's only actually space for one headline here, that's how news stories work. They don't account for nuance either.

How do you know that’s what he did, were you there?

 

The law certainly isn’t drive 260 miles up the country, it’s to stay inside. He didn’t do that, any movement out of your home adds risk. He didn’t care about that.

 

There’s more than one issue here, we can discuss both of them. Sorry if that upsets your Tory friends. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Ozanne

[stuartbert two hats]

26 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

For a start ‘we’ haven’t discredited me, you’ve typed words from the government press office. There is no collective we here, it just seems to be you arguing this point.

 

You do realise we focus on more than one point at once don’t you, or do you think we are all thick to do that?

 

He’s added unnecessary risk by going outside and travelling. Even if he didn’t come into contact with anyone there is still a very slight added element of risk. He could’ve touched something, breathed on something or even not been as diligent washing his hands. The only way to keep 100% of the risk down is to NOT GO OUTSIDE. It is factual if you go outside there’s an extra layer of risk.

 

Equally if what he’s done in your mind is so bad why are you arguing a defence for him in any of this, thus giving the illusion you support his actions?

 

It seems very much like @DeanoL is making a strategic case here. I'm not under any illusion that he supports Cummings, but it's quite clear which line of attack he thinks is the best to make.

Edit: and there's no suggestion in today's posts that he's a friend of the Tories. I think this exchange may have proved the point about nuance not being easy to communicate en masses.

Edited May 23, 2020 by stuartbert two hats

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

It seems very much like @DeanoL is making a strategic case here. I'm not under any illusion that he supports Cummings, but it's quite clear which line of attack he thinks is the best to make.

Edit: and there's no suggestion in today's posts that he's a friend of the Tories. I think this exchange may have proved the point about nuance not being easy to communicate en masses.

You can argue more than 1 point, I fully understand he broke the rules and has also added an extra element of risk of spreading the virus. Nuanced or not, we can discuss both points. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

I think you can attack Cummings on both points. Why not? Driving to a different area does increase the risk. Your car could break down. You could get into an accident. He almost definitely had to stop somewhere and I sincerely hope there is footage. If you get hospitalised in the new area you are bringing cases that wouldn't have been in that area into a hospital there.

[efcfanwirral]

2 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Outdoor summer mentioned in relation to bars and restaurants 

What better way to distract people from a scandal than mention they might be able to go to the pub soon...

1 hour ago, crazyfool1 said:

I’d been trying to forget 2020  ... It’s one way of getting herd immunity ... give us some rules and then blatantly flout them ... 

I think that's it - this is strategic, people aren't going out as much as is needed to help the economy when more reopens next month. But they can't be responsible for a second wave through setting rules that will lead to that, they need to be able to blame the people for that side while congratulating themselves for saving the economy on the other. 

Cummings doesnt matter - their opening up too early and failings matter much more. This is distracting from that 

[Zoo Music Girl]

1 hour ago, WestCountryGirl said:

I actually had to go and smash a bottle in the back yard. I've been rage tidying my house ever since.

I had a rage vacuum! 

[fatyeti24]

1 minute ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

rage vacuum! 

Williams's Green, Sunday 15.40.

[jparx]

I agree with the notion that we should be targeting the current attack on Cummings clearly breaking the lockdown rules. Getting in to the territory of "he put lives at risk" gives them more to argue against. It's obvious and clear he broke the rules, and when the journalists focused on that line of questioning earlier it was clearly very uncomfortable for Shapps, because they know he is in the wrong and they're having to scramble and lie to protect him. If the questions were more geared towards him putting lives in danger, there are too many ways they can weasel out of that argument.

The most effect way to attack them on this is to keep it simple and to the black and white facts; he was involved in the lockdown planning and guidance and clearly broke it. The Tories will want us to start arguing about him endangering lives because they know they can argue the toss on that one. I completely agree it was a needlessly dangerous move that was a risk to his parents, and to anyone he likely encountered at a service station or wherever, but unfortunately when you're arguing with Daily Mail types I think it's best to stay simple and to the point. Nuance doesn't work with them.

Fascinated to hear Starmer's argument on this. He's been anonymous today and I feel like he's busy lawyering away preparing a big attack.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

I think labour have been very clever not calling for his resignation, these things have a habit of rumbling on and on, their stance at the moment has been to try and deflect it as safeguarding the children. But it’s not going to go away and the longer it goes on the worse it gets for them. I think rather than immediately call for his resignation it’s instead give them enough rope to hang themselves. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Guest]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/23/new-witnesses-cast-doubt-on-dominic-cummingss-lockdown-claims?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 

Oh dear.

[jparx]

4 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I think labour have been very clever not calling for his resignation, these things have a habit of rumbling on and on, their stance at the moment has been to try and deflect it as safeguarding the children. But it’s not going to go away and the longer it goes on the worse it gets for them. I think rather than immediately call for his resignation it’s instead give them enough rope to hang themselves. 

Indeed. Not to mention the SNP have already gone in quite heavy with it. If they called for it today it would just be another voice, but holding off can drag it out even longer.  

[zahidf]

 

 

[jparx]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/23/new-witnesses-cast-doubt-on-dominic-cummingss-lockdown-claims?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 

Oh dear.

😂

Amazing. 

[Guest]

Can we discuss the 2nd breaking of lockdown or is that not allowed? 😉

[Crazyfool01]

this makes their defence of him all the more ridiculous  

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

These things only go one way, he’ll 100% be gone in my opinion. They can try and blackball it all they want but this will only grow and grow until they have no choice to cut him lose.