Jump to content

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. 

  • Upvote 2
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

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?"

  • Upvote 4
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.



×
×
  • Create New...