[Mitchell]

Poll incoming x

[AnnieK]

No he shouldn't be fired....the selfish twat shpuld have resigned

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

No he shouldn't be fired....the selfish twat shpuld have resigned

Oh he completely should’ve resigned.

[Mitchell]

In my opinion he’s only still there as he knows where the bodies are buried, he is the Sinitta of the Tory party.

[Zizu]

I don’t think he should be fired or forced out for this matter ..

If he’s such a bad man get him on something else .. maybe another misdemeanour further down the line .


He’s being incorrectly crucified for taking a 30 minutes drive to test his eyesight yet he never said that he took the test drive for that reason ..


Check out this excerpt

::

She didn't want to risk a nearly 300-mile drive with our child, given how ill I had been. We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely. We drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town. We did not visit the castle. We did not walk around the town. We parked by a river. My wife and I discussed the situation. We agreed that I could drive safely, we should turn around, go home. “




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Zizu

He’s being incorrectly crucified for taking a 30 minutes drive to test his eyesight

No. He isn't.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No. He isn't.

Oh yes he is ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[caprimint]

No

[Beso]

100 percent not.

[Zizu]

Now this morning Starmer was calling for Cummings’s head ..

Now apparently there was a political commentator on today’s Good morning Britain say that 4 labour MPs had broken the lock down and none had been punished by him.
Is this the case?

Does anyone know ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Beso]

Wish I owned all memes for next week.

[Zizu]

Interesting...
Please excuse the cut and paste job

Last Labour took on a new line and a new, harsher, tone. Instead of asking questions, the leader of the opposition pivoted to demanding the scalp of Dominic Cummings. Pitch forks were sharpened. Attack videos were made. The witch hunt campaign began in earnest.

Whilst this more aggressive strategy, as Corbyn’s used to, collects likes and retweets in droves online, Starmer has now opened up a can of hypocrisy worms that he will not be able to put back with any ease.

It isn’t that long ago that Labour’s Stephen Kinnock drove hundreds of miles to see his elderly parents during lockdown or that one of Labour’s few remaining MPs in County Durham, Kevan Jones, attended a constituents’ birthday party. On both occasions, Keir Starmer of course did nothing.

This new approach smacks bad faith hyper partisanship – exactly the approach the new Labour Leader told the nation he would avoid. Truly gone is the brief window of constructive opposition.

Starmer’s statement yesterday highlighted the tragic cases of people across this country not able to be with their loved ones in their final moments, and of mourners unable to find the closure and shared consolation of funerals. Yet this was the same Keir Starmer who did nothing to reprimand Labour MP Tahir Ali who attended a funeral in his constituency as one of 100 mourners at the start of April. The point scoring partisan double standards over such sensitive matters leaves a truly bitter taste in the mouth.

The statement is even more brazen when you take into account that Dominic Cummings himself was among the many millions of people robbed of being with their loved ones in their final moments. Due to the lockdown Cummings was unable to visit his uncle, whom he was exceptionally close to, through his final days in hospital in London. At the time, Cummings was isolating in Durham.

What a contrast to those Labour MPs who darted about the country for reasons other than safeguarding children with particular needs.

Even viewed under the harshest lens, the case of Dominic Cummings is less than clear cut. MPs like Steve Baker who have called for Cummings to go have spoken about the “spirit” rather than the letter of the rules being broken. This far from the same category of those Labour MPs who actually broke lockdown.

Labour’s Health Secretary in Wales, Vaughn Gething, had a picnic with his family in a park at a time when the Welsh Government he sits in explicitly said “No picnics in the park.” There is no wriggle room there. Keir Starmer of course stayed silent.

Once the guillotine has been dragged out for one person, it rarely works out well for the initial operators.

Labour needs to recognise they can’t cheer on the cancel culture revolution for their political opponents, while ignoring the graver misdeeds of their own. Keir Starmer is opening a pandora’s box of persecution, and it will not discriminate by party. This can’t be one rule for Labour politicians, and another rule for everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

Why is everyone dismissing the fact that this apparently unforgivable ‘crime’ comes down to an obviously concerned couple simply doing their level best to protect their 4 yrs old child , whilst actually causing no harm to anyone !

Blimey I’d give them the benefit of the doubt if their explanation was based around them simply being worried that they MAY both get poorly but given we KNOW that that the mother was poorly at the start and the father actually got very , very poorly the whole witch-hunt seems grossly unfair .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[MB.]

Originally Posted by Zizu

whilst actually causing no harm to anyone !

Good morning and welcome to my TED Talk on how contagious diseases work

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by MB.

Good morning and welcome to my TED Talk on how contagious diseases work

This whole shambolic affair is about one man breaking a rule .. if you listened to his explanation - at no time were they at risk of spreading the disease .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Zizu

This whole shambolic affair is about one man breaking a rule .. if you listened to his explanation - at no time were they at risk of spreading the disease .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So if his car had broken down, was he going to walk the rest of the way or put a breakdown driver and therefore another family at risk? Or maybe someone else who stopped to help. With this virus, there is risk everywhere

If on the test drive to test his eyesight, it had proved to not be up to driving and he caused an accident....was that not putting people at risk?

The terms of your driving licence state that you must feel well enough to drive before getting behind the wheel of said car.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

So if his car had broken down, was he going to walk the rest of the way or put a breakdown driver and therefore another family at risk? Or maybe someone else who stopped to help. With this virus, there is risk everywhere



If on the test drive to test his eyesight, it had proved to not be up to driving and he caused an accident....was that not putting people at risk?



The terms of your driving licence state that you must feel well enough to drive before getting behind the wheel of said car.

The thing is he’d HAD trouble with his eyesight.. at no time before / during / after making his statement has he said his eyesight was impaired when he took off on the test drive ... the drive was simply to assure both his his wife and himself that he’d recovered sufficiently from his illness to make the long drive home ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Why is everyone dismissing the fact that this apparently unforgivable ‘crime’comes down to an obviously concerned couple simply doing their level best to protect their 4 yrs old child , whilst actually causing no harm to anyone !

Blimey I’d give them the benefit of the doubt if their explanation was based around them simply being worried that they MAY both get poorly but given we KNOW that that the mother was poorly at the start and the father actually got very , very poorly the whole witch-hunt seems grossly unfair .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Simply because he is a Tory Zizu

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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.

did he "make" any rules?

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Simply because he is a Tory Zizu

False

[Oliver_W]

I don't think so - by keeping him, the Tories are hoisting themselves on their own petard* and I look forward to Boris blundering along as he tries to maintain credibility.


*give or take a letter

[bots]

As 70% of the British public believe he should be sacked it would seem to be political suicide to continue making excuses for him to keep him in position. At the end of the day, that's usually all that matters and Boris would be stupid to ignore it, but then he isn't normal

[Crimson Dynamo]

No of course not

It's just hysteria that is class and politically motivated. Plus many twitter, tick tockites are bored and don't have much to do and need to vent their frustration