There was a police representative on tv a few minutes ago claiming that when the police are challenging people they are saying ‘if it doesn’t apply to Cummings... “


I’d fine them all just for being stupid .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Probably the same people who never observed a lockdown to begin with, though given people can travel where they want within England now I don’t know why the police would be stopping them ?

Does Cummings also deserve to be fined for stupidity?

I don’t think he would miss 100 quid :laugh:

With regard to the poll I think he should have been to begin with, I think it would be pointless now, the damage is done

Just because Mr C lights his cigars with £50 notes, don't assume Cummings has that kind of wealth :nono:

:smug:

Yes ,this will be their get out of jail card now,lol , as long as they can blame someone else its ok.:wavey:

People were always going to use this as justification for lockdown fatigue. Which is why, if he had, at the very least apologised, people wouldn't be using it as an excuse.

more people will break lockdown rules, since it is ok to do so, Tories will soon find out what mess they brought upon themselves lol

since moron loser Cummings did not get sacked

I do think he should have apologised Annie but people were flouting the rules way before this, I just don't know why people would be led by that,just carry on being sensible and protect yourself and family as much as possible,why would you put yourself and loved ones at risk just to kick back at DC:shrug:

The phrase "lead by example" seems to not apply to this government

You can't ignore the fact that there's a huge difference between random people flouting the rules, and the people who made the rules flouting the rules.

If a random person doesn't go along with a set of rules, they're saying "I don't agree with your rules". Which might be dumb, but it's still (at the end of the day) just their thinking.

If one of the people who MADE the rules doesn't go along with the rules, they're saying "I helped make these rules, you have to follow the rules, but I don't."

The implication is that they're bigger/better/more important and the rules that THEY made, don't apply to them - only the "little folks".

I am 100% convinced this was (and still is) Dom Cummings thinking. Not just because of his actions here, but because of pretty much everything I've ever seen him say or write. He thinks of himself as something "greater than", and he thinks of the general public as sheep. Actually more like ants.

People don't like to be thought of as little, or less important... because they aren't. There will definitely be people who think, "if the rules don't apply to Dominic Cummings then they don't apply to me". And honestly, why shouldn't they?

Not only that, but people started going OTT with flouting the rules, after "government sources" leaked to the press that lockdown was ending, as a way to gage the mood of the country.

Police statement in full.

"On March 27 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation six of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

On April 12 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on May 25 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on May 25 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis.

Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.

In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.

Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on April 19 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation.

Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision." https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...d-and-scotland


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hmm reading this it seems a bit of a cop out (lol) there is no mention of the police visit to his father's property. Why did the investigation not include the journey to Durham when he was symptomatic? There is no clarification that he did or didn't stop en route, if he had that would be a clear breach of regulation six of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 wouldn't it?

Basically its suggesting he broke advice not laws, which seeing as he drove to Durham and exposed a member of his household to another family member not in his household, personally..imo...he hid.

I have no idea where the idea came from that it's only a problem / sacking offense if he broke the letter of the law. He should sacked for going against the guidelines that he was instrumental in creating. The legality of it doesn't matter. IMO the focus on whether or not it's illegal is and always was a red herring.

I wasn't back on here to vote on this.
I'd have voted a solid yes he should.

Even moreso after his ridiculous account of his reasoning for both the trip to his Family's home, then the, I( mean really), the sight testing trip.

He should have been, still should be sacked.
He'd have a good new career set up writing fiction novels for sure.

He must have something incredible as a political hold possibly on this PM that could damage him.
For this arrogant Cummings to know he needed never to resign or even apologise.
Also to, to be sure this pathetic PM wouldn't ask him to apologise nor dare to sack him either.

I was actually stunned the police accepted the ridiculous story of testing his eyes, yet driving a car with his wife and young child in said car.
It does need looking at again definitely in my view, particularly if there is even the slightest possibility of a second trip being made too.

Simply because he is a Tory Zizu

Nothing to do with him being a Tory. For me it was simply down to him making the rules to keep families from seeing each other (quite rightly) and then disregarding those rules when it suited him. Many, many families got ill and had to manage their own childcare in their own homes because they were the rules. People may have had more sympathy were it not for the pathetic story about a 30 mile trip to test his eyesight with the child in the car.

Exactly.

Nothing to do with it being a Con advisor for me either.
Although those making those points would, had it been a Labour connection would have been hammering them.

Rightly too,as I was as furious with Stephen Kinnock, Labour MP, going to his parents home too.
When he did so.
Driving hundreds of miles too.
He was totally wrong 100% too in my view.


This guy took his wife who had symptoms, rather than isolate where they were.
Into the space of a car, with their child, then drive hundreds of miles.

Really, there was NOWHERE in the whole of the massive city of London, they could have gone to.
Pure fantasy and nonsense.
It was the Easter period, they were heading off for that.

However had his wife got worse, or his car broke down, then anyone called out to the car, or they'd needed emergency services,they would have been exposed to the virus if his wife had it.

Then he said he took ill when at his parents, you can be contagious with this up to 3 days, before the symptoms even appear, so he was likely infected at the time he was driving too.

The eyesight story, is ridiculous.
WHO in their right mind, even just as to the safety of others, thinks they have sight affected, then gets into a car, putting their wife and child in with them..to do a 60 mile round trip driving.

If he thought he had sight problems, he should NEVER have got behind the wheel of a car, his wife should have insisted he didn't, and since the child was supposedly taken to his parents to be looked after there by them.
With his wife supposedly having the virus.
What on earth is that child then doing being put into a car on a sight testing, not sightseeing, trip.

Ridiculous, I mean really he must think the public are total idiots!!

It isn't and shouldn't be a Tory or political issue..the criticism of him should be the same that should be fired at anyone,coming up with such a ridiculous account of events as he did.

However only the possibly more unfair thinking would defend him on this.
Something they're likely doing only because he's a Con adviser.

It's a rubbish story, it's a pity it didn't ever get to a Court.
It would have been in a bad way a hilariously stupid account.

You are right however, he helped construct the rules for everyone else to follow.
It's unbelievable anyone, politically minded or not, could do anything else other than condemn him for breaking these rules.
There is no defence for him breaking any part of the rules he helped set up.
None, full stop.
He should have been sacked, if he wouldn't resign but this inept hopeless PM dare not sack him it seems.
Now that's a good question to ask, WHY dare he not?

It was actually even more staggering the PM would make sure he was defended in fact.
That's a very bad representation of this PMs judgement.
After all he's the PMs advisor on just about all things politically, so his involvement in the construction of rules would be significant.

False

did he "make" any rules?

https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content...moby.jpg?w=630

He looks a lot like Moby on the Daily Mirror front page :laugh: