Cummings and Goings

Perhaps we could move the Wakefield (which has been postponed / cancelled due to Covid) show to Durham or Barnard Castle this year?

Barnard Castle should be OK. If I’ve understood the rules correctly, we would just need to call it an “eye test” and then people could travel up from London to visit…

So the premise is that someone breaking the rules that has a set punishment should have other consequences or not depending on their standing and depending on what we as a society deem is the punishment and based on our predujuices and opinions.

I don’t think so, although that’s a little incoherent so I might not have followed.

The premise is that if someone tells us not to do something because it is important that we all don’t do it in order to save lives, then you don’t expect to then see that same person do exactly the thing that they told us all not to do. Especially if not doing the thing is difficult to come to terms with emotionally. Cummings’ position in government (including setting the UK strategy on Covid-19) means that reasonable people could expect him to lead by example, or conclude that if he doesn’t, then he doesn’t believe the advice at all.

Many of us would have liked to have travelled 200 miles to visit close relatives in the past couple of months, but continue to choose not to because we have been told (and recognise) that it is (still) not the right thing to do. If you’re not in the position of having to make such sacrifices, then you’re either extremely lucky or breaking the rules yourself.

These are words that I didn’t expect to write, but I think Douglas Ross (Tory MP and ex-Junior Minister) got it right in his resignation letter:

“While the intentions may have been well meaning, the reaction to this news shows that Mr Cummings interpretation of the government advice was not shared by the vast majority of people who have done as the government asked.

“I have constituents who didn’t get to say goodbye to loved ones; families who could not mourn together; people who didn’t visit sick relatives because they followed the guidance of the government.

“I cannot in good faith tell them they were all wrong and one senior adviser to the government was right.”

Perhaps Cummings’ best achievement is to have brought so many many unlikely people together in joint condemnation of his actions…

If you’re not in the position of having to make such sacrifices, then you’re either extremely lucky or breaking the rules yourself

As someone who has been doing extreme isolation I have made that sacrifice so I know what it is like to miss out on things.

The premise is that if someone tells us not to do something because it is important that we all don’t do it in order to save lives, then you don’t expect to then see that same person do exactly the thing that they told us all not to do.

That is really simplistic as you know there are exceptions to the rules as laid out but I agree the message had to be simple so many people did follow them.

In essence the government had to treat us all as children with very simple yes/no statements when things were far more complicated.

The thing I was pointing out is on one hand some tried to say “It’s one rule for them and one for us” to make out someone is getting away with something then when it comes to it they want that person to be hit with a greater penalty than the law allows because who they are and what they represent.

As I said we all bring our own take in to things when we judge someone but if we were even handed it would be based on what the law states as after all are we not all equal in the eyes of the law or is that a bendable take on things?

Slightly changing the subject at least we have a cordial dialogue here as I hear today the Bishop of Worcester was threatened with violence because of his utterings on this issue and that is a sad reflection of our society

So the premise is that someone breaking the rules that has a set punishment should have other consequences or not depending on their standing and depending on what we as a society deem is the punishment and based on our predujuices and opinions.

Correct. But not (always) the way you think it is.

For example, you can tell anything you want to the press. You’ll perhaps face some legal issues, but nothing else.
In France, a journalist can also loose its official card, and so its title of journalist, forever.

It was the same when I was working for the French tax administration. Rules were much stronger than for the other people.
And that’s perfectly normal.

In essence the government had to treat us all as children with very simple yes/no statements when things were far more complicated.

It’s easy to understand: how to control people with thousand of exceptions?

It remembers me a girl yesterday on radio “they ask me to keep 1 m from the guy near me, but it’s my boyfriend! I’m very angry”.
What is obvious to her is not obvious to a policeman. Should he verify this for all people, and then remember who is with who?
This is just impossible. So one rule, even if it’s sometimes very stupid.

Doug:

if it was lawful to do it to save life or achieve an objective.

Well… that leaves a mountain of wiggle room!

the Prime Minister believes in one rule for his friend and another for normal people.

Doesn’t matter what he thinks if Cummings broke the law […]

Actually, this story pretty much ceased to be about Cummings the moment the PM tried to whip MPs to support “his friend”.
Now, now it raises fundamental questions about the state of leadership of the country.

but as I said not everyone who has flouted lockdown has been fined as a lot in the UK

Strawman.
Whether other people have or have not been punished does not have much bearing in this case, especially given that all of these other people are unlikely to yield the sort of influence that the person running the country attempted to whip his MPs to a favourable opinion. You do understand what that means, don’t you?

Can’t have it both ways.

Actually, we can.

Judges, MPs, the Prime Minister (and their entourage), high up police people…. they enjoy a unique and privileged position in society and thus are expected to maintain a higher standard both while in office and in their public life.

as it shows the Nasty party element are still there.

Uh… and exactly when have the Tories ever been anything else?
The Tories are your party if you’re rich, preferably a party donor, and have no ethical problems with tax avoidance.
And who gets to make up the shortfall? Well, ladies and gents, that’s you and me. Let’s start by demonising foreigners (here to take our jobs / hospital beds (delete as you see fit)) and then the unemployed (feckless scroungers) and then pensioners (why should they enjoy a triple lock that the rest don’t have (ignoring that a few percent of nothing is still pretty much nothing)). In come all sorts of weird stealth taxes, like the bedroom window tax. Oh, and ‘x’ years after Grenfell, how many other tower blocks still have that sort of cladding in place? Don’t expect any action soon from this government. And when all that is done and dusted, don’t forget austerity. Years and years of austerity and public sector pay freezes (but MPs got to have scandalously large increases and bonuses).

I read today that the EU citizen’s registration scheme being handled electronically with no little piece of paper to point to. I’m torn here. Will it be another Windrush, or will a vast amount of people’s personal details end up on pastebin? With this government, it’s really fifty-fifty…

They were never not the Nasty Party. They’ve just managed to find a Home Secretary who’s a bigger bitch than May. That must take some doing.

David:

So If I want to travel to the other side of the country, I can, and I will not break any rule.

A part that you forgot to mention is “in the context of doing your job”.

I don’t know what sort of journalist you are, but yes, it would be acceptable for you to come to visit me (on the other side of the country) in order to conduct an interview about “the experiences of a foreigner introvert in a country in lockdown” (needs a snappier title!), although a valid question would be “why not use Skype?”.

What would not be acceptable is if you pop over on Saturday for a cup of tea and a chat because you have nothing else planned. As much as I would enjoy that, and even bake a cake, going about five hundred kilometres west (and back, like 14 hours of driving!) for personal reasons is… not permitted.
[plus, you’re in the East and The East Is Red, aaaargh! ;-)]

Doug again:

should have other consequences or not depending on their standing

Yes, when you are talking about the people who make the rules blazenly breaking them and/or supporting one of their own breaking said rules.

There should be additional punishment. That additional punishment is usually a resignation. Because breaking the rules demonstrates a lack of moral integrity that is expected of people holding those positions.
Not that the current leadership would understand such trifling concerns as “morals”.

no matter what the actual law states.

Here’s a question – what does the actual law state? Johnson has said that Cummings did not break any law. Is the travel restriction a law, or is it not?

It is the same corruption of the law that treats someone differently if they say smoke a certain drug

Yeah, expect actors to get a light slap on the wrist and the blots to be locked up. Sadly, I think that’s actually the wrong way around. Some wasted loser on an estate is hardly going to be anybody’s role model. Pete Doherty, on the other hand…

As someone who has been doing extreme isolation I have made that sacrifice so I know what it is like to miss out on things.

I think the overwhelming majority of people, in much of Europe [*], have made sacrifices. Some may have found the sacrifies to be “no big deal”, others will have found them to be painful – financially, emotionally, or both. And perhaps the worst of all, the fact that local supermarkets here are now printing the contact details of help for victims of domestic abuse at the bottom of the till roll. That’s painful on a whole different level.

Very few people, even those who don’t care for the rules, have had “life as normal” since early Spring.

• - other places too, but I’m specifically not going to consider whatever the hell America thinks it is up to.

In essence the government had to treat us all as children with very simple yes/no statements when things were far more complicated.

This, dear readers, is a one sentence explanation of why Brexit is now four years down the line and still a clusterf….

they want that person to be hit with a greater penalty than the law allows because who they are and what they represent.

That’s because there is more at play then simply “what the law says”.

For example, if I was to take photos of things that happen at work (processes and such) and paste them all on Facebook, I could probably expect my employment to soon come to an end because even though I have not technically broken any laws, posting that information could affect the privacy of the methods and processes used by the company, something that could be valuable to competitors. You know, the stuff that gets handwaved as “trade secrets”.

I would imagine that Erskine May has more than a few words to say on these sorts of matters, and it usually boils down to “disgracing their office”. Whether or not a law was broken is merely the determination that an MP has acted in a disgraceful manner (although, note, it’s a flexible interpretation – some MPs have resigned over things that were not particularly bad because their lack of judgement would raise questions over their capacity to do their job and/or have the trust of the public that they represent).

I feel obliged to point out, clearly, that we are not talking about some random people enjoying an ilicit pub lock-in. We are talking about the leadership of the country.

are we not all equal in the eyes of the law

We should be. But this does not mean that there are not other consequences arising from a result of the act.

Note also, that whether or not Cummings stays is really no longer the issue. The issue now should be whether or not Johnson stays.

Indeed, if Cummings should ever get the push, he’ll have been the architect of chaos transmogrified into unwilling scapegoat. But the masses won’t see the sleight of hand, and things will carry on like they did before.

But, then, we’re so far down the tunnel of corruption and beyond normal accountability that the real sleight of hand will be shown when nothing at all happens. We probably won’t see much of Cummings in the next few months. But it’ll be business as usual. Because they really don’t give a crap, and there is the story.

at least we have a cordial dialogue here

Certainly. There’s no point shouting and screaming even though, short of civil insurrection, it’s pretty unlikely that anything is going to change. This isn’t the first scandal of the political elite. It isn’t even the first scandal of Cummings and his association with the PM. It’s just a pile of outrage that will fade away, until the next time.
Just like it did the last time.

and that is a sad reflection of our society

Unfortunately the whole Brexit thing, led by a bunch of right wing nutjobs, has encouraged a lot more right wing nutjobs to crawl out of the woodwork. The actions of those in power, and especially a lack of condemnation for that sort of behaviour, enables some screwed up people to act in a manner where threatening to kill a bishop is thought of as acceptable. I can understand saying “I wish you’d just drop dead” in the middle of a heated argument (especially when the argument is utterly lost and there’s nothing more to say). It isn’t nice, but it’s a world away from “or we’ll kill you”. No normal person says such a thing. Not even as a “joke” (scare quotes intentional).
The bishops of Ripon, of Newcastle, and of Liverpool also appear to have received similar messages. It is indeed a sad indictment of society.

It remembers me a girl yesterday on radio “they ask me to keep 1 m from the guy near me, but it’s my boyfriend! I’m very angry”.

Yeah, I do wonder about the idea being tried out in restaurants of putting plexiglass between each place at the table.

This may make sense for business lunches and friends getting together after work.

But it makes no sense at all for families. Like man, woman, and their two children. Live together. Came in a car together. And are separated at the table… what?

Plus, there’s a part of me that thinks that the plexiglass is more an attempt at “seeing to be doing something” than actually doing it. I mean, if we eat with bits of transparent plastic around…
Will the waitress still take the bottle of BBQ sauce from one table and directly give it to another? If so, congratulations.
Will she be wearing gloves when she clears away the plates from a table after somebody has finished eating, and will she then serve you wearing those same gloves? If so, congratulations.
Will the establishment ask a person to leave if they’re coughing in a manner that can’t be explained as “smoked too much” or “has hayfever”? If not, congratulations.

In order to restrict the behaviour of this rather nasty virus, at least until we have an effective innoculation or it mutates into a less severe form and becomes “yet another cold”, thinking about these sorts of things will be our normal.

I know everybody wants this to be done and life to go back to how it was. That’s not going to happen. Restrictions will ease off, but it might be years before big events where lots of people squish together (pop concerts, for instance) are permitted. I also would imagine a lot of restrictions on inter-country travel, especially to and from those countries where the virus remains a large problem. I don’t want to even think about what this means for air travel. There’s a part of me that suspects that the cheap package holiday may have had its day.

Like everybody else, I hope for a return to “normal”, but I don’t imagine normal to happen any time soon.

Yeah, I do wonder about the idea being tried out in restaurants of putting plexiglass between each place at the table.

I did suggest to the Now Show (which may be a mystery to Rick) that they had suspended sheets dividing their presenters and guests – just to show good practice, you understand – but to no avail!

Our brave broadcasters putting themselves at unnecessary risk just to provide us with news and entertainment.

More seriously, though, I do feel that, along with the bin men, supermarket staff, and many, many others, the BBC is doing a really good job.

OK, it’s a bit repetitive, and full of nostalgia, but…

I’m amused that Stephen, despite his initial opposition to this topic, has contributed almost as much as Rick.

Now Rick, we know, will respond carefully and thoughtfully, and amply, to a discussion.

But Steve’s contribution surprises me in its volume, considering his initial opposition!

Just sayin’.

The thing I was pointing out is on one hand some tried to say “It’s one rule for them and one for us” to make out someone is getting away with something then when it comes to it they want that person to be hit with a greater penalty than the law allows because who they are and what they represent.

No, this is a complete strawman. It is nothing to do with getting a different penalty from the law. What we expect is an employer to sack an employee who clearly broke their rules, i.e. exactly the same as would happen to anyone else.

The fact that those rules have also had a massive negative impact on everyone else in the country who have been obeying them, and that employee helped write the rules, makes it even more morally reprehensible.

although a valid question would be “why not use Skype?”

Chatcube :)

What we expect is an employer to sack an employee who clearly broke their rules, i.e. exactly the same as would happen to anyone else.

So I assume the employee is entitled to the same rights as any employee then if you argue that and if his defence is correct and he has acted in line with things then I guess you and others would be willing to pay his compensation for unfair dismissal.

Also on that basis perhaps to keep things correct we should make sure that Steven Kinnock and the three other MP’s who “broke the law” are sacked otherwise we could be accused of bias in our views…

Before you ask no I am not a member of the Txxt party or any other right wing nut job one but what is good for one is good for the other is it not.

This, dear readers, is a one sentence explanation of why Brexit

Exactly so now we have used our sovereign right to decide how to approach this situation its clear to me that the real children are not out and about in the general public but trying their best to score points of each other in a pointless "You said/I did " battle of hot air in some gothic place in London.

trying their best to score points of each other in a pointless "You said/I did " battle of hot air in some gothic place in London.

Think I have just seen the irony in that statement :-)

I’’ll get my coat…

should I even bother to try and format it correctly?

trying their best to score points of each other in a pointless “You said/I did” battle of hot air in some gothic place in London.

Think I have just seen the irony in that statement :-

I wish you joy in your apparent self-realisation!

But don’t beat yourself up too much!

Exactly so now we have used our sovereign right to decide how to approach this situation its clear to me that the real children are not out and about in the general public but trying their best to score points of each other in a pointless "You said/I did " battle of hot air in some gothic place in London.

Glad we got rid of those “unelected bureaucrats” .. oh.

Someone has started a petition to the UK parliament on change.org to sack the PMs adviser and it currently has 1,035,068 signatures.

I wonder if it will actually be debated.

Someone has started a petition to the UK parliament

I notice today that a group is starting a legal action to attempt to get some satisfaction over this, demanding further investigation by various agencies.

I expect it would only result in a £60 fine if successful, but the political implications may turn out to be more significant.

My friend observed:

but what if the PM cannot function without his puppet-master?

Sad times!

Oh look, the unelected and essentially unaccountable person running the government wants to bin the GDPR because mass data harvesting and lack of privacy is something he clearly believes in.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/25/dominic-cummings-data-law-shake-up-a-danger-to-trade-says-eu

I’m really proud of starting this thread.

What a pity the Goings haven’t materialised! Yet!

Four months in and nobody’s brought up the song from Blazing Saddles?

Edit: for those with failing memories: https://genius.com/Madeline-kahn-im-tired-lyrics

Oh look, the unelected and essentially unaccountable person running the government wants to bin the GDPR because mass data harvesting and lack of privacy is something he clearly believes in.

He or his mates have a financial interest in a data mining operation.

The usual requirement for anything like this making as far as consideration, and likely implementation, is that a large amount of spendables will arrive in the bank account of the person concerned.
Evidence of past financial benefit from such things is easily obtained by reading back issues of various newspapers and checking the appropriate public records – they don’t even bother covering their tracks.

Looks like the smarmy little <beep>er has finally been given the shove.
Too little far too late, but on the other hand Johnson might soon deliver a U-turn and compromise with the EU, given that Trump and all he stood for is finished, and it’s quite clear from America that Ireland, not Britain, comes first. It’s a lonely world out there with no friends, so maybe, just maybe, they might get down to business…so long as Farage keeps his gob shut ¹.

¹ He looks like he is planning to relaunch himself as the “screw lockdown we want FREEDOM” party. They’re busy trying that in America. The virus is pretty much out of control there. The two are not unrelated. But, then, Farage has always appealed to the selfish bastards incapable of considering others…

He looks like he is planning to relaunch himself as the “screw lockdown we want FREEDOM” party. They’re busy trying that in America.

Send Forage to America – maybe he can fit in and become one of the 100,000+ per day.
He won’t like it, but he might shut up.

Garage? Ideal candidate for Elon Musk’s Mars shot.

Interesting on This Morning that David Davis, who otherwise didn’t have a bad word to say about Cummings, smiled wryly at the footage of Cummings leaving No 10 by the front door disconsolately clutching his cardboard box and pointed out that he could have put his coffee mug and whatever in his rucksack and left quietly via the back entrance or the Foreign Office door, thus implying that this will have been a carefully stage-managed piece of theatrical manipulation.

Totally in-character, but to what end is difficult to see. Perhaps time will tell.

After all, he is an arch-manipulator!

I’m just disappointed that the 1 203 060 people who bothered to petition parliament for his dismissal don’t seem to have had their say!

The gift that just keeps on giving…