sacked

[Oracle]

There is nothing moral about it:
A proportion of voters, they dont give a toss about facts or law in this case.
They have found a gotcha on which to condemn a man they dislike who they blame for breixt.

If they cared about law they would be MORE vociferous about other cases like an MP travelling to a birthday party or unnecessary journeys to isle of skye. Corbyns repeated contempt for distancing or law would question his fitness to be a lawmaker.

But no. The bile is solely reserved for cummings.
Demonstrating there is neither based in morality or law. It is based on mob justice: a lynching for a man people dislike.

So spare us the sanctimonious BS stagger.

Give cummings a thursday clap for a public employee getting corona whilst actually working, not shirking at home on full pay!

That's a political issue. The moral issue to the vast majority of voters is he broke the rules.

I agree about the gutter press and media, but his hypocrisy, arrogance and conference did nothing for his credibility as a man or political adviser.

[Muddy Retriever]

So are there "minor" serial killers? We are not comparing different laws that have been breached, but the degree to which a given law has been breached - IF such a distinction exists.

Fine, let’s s compare with a different breach of lockdown rules. Let’s say, somebody infected with the virus spits into the face of someone else. This has happened I believe. I think that would constitute a more serious breach of lockdown rules than driving from Durham to Barnard Castle.

I suspect that there are millions of people in this country that have committed minor breaches of lockdown rules.

[Graham Breeze]

Give cummings a thursday clap for a public employee getting corona whilst actually working, not shirking at home on full pay!

Good idea! Dunno which is the best newspaper to contact to rally support.

The Guardian?

[Stagger]

There is nothing moral about it:
A proportion of voters, they dont give a toss about facts or law in this case.
They have found a gotcha on which to condemn a man they dislike who they blame for breixt.

If they cared about law they would be MORE vociferous about other cases like an MP travelling to a birthday party or unnecessary journeys to isle of skye. Corbyns repeated contempt for distancing or law would question his fitness to be a lawmaker.

But no. The bile is solely reserved for cummings.
Demonstrating there is neither based in morality or law. It is based on mob justice: a lynching for a man people dislike.

So spare us the sanctimonious BS stagger.

Give cummings a thursday clap for a public employee getting corona whilst actually working, not shirking at home on full pay!

I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

[Mike T]

Fine, let’s s compare with a different breach of lockdown rules. Let’s say, somebody infected with the virus spits into the face of someone else. This has happened I believe. I think that would constitute a more serious breach of lockdown rules than driving from Durham to Barnard Castle.

I suspect that there are millions of people in this country that have committed minor breaches of lockdown rules.

Different offences - apples and pears. Both are fruit, but different fruit. Yes, there are worse offences than driving to Barnard Castle to test your eye sight - but this is not an excuse in law.

[Muddy Retriever]

Different offences - apples and pears. Both are fruit, but different fruit. Yes, there are worse offences than driving to Barnard Castle to test your eye sight - but this is not an excuse in law.

No, they're both breaches of the lockdown rules, one just happens to be far more serious than the other.

You said "As to the minor - it is a bit like being a little bit pregnant." But it's not because a more serious breach of the rules is more likely to lead to infection in others. So whether a breach is minor or serious is wholly relevant.

[Witton Park]

Different offences - apples and pears. Both are fruit, but different fruit. Yes, there are worse offences than driving to Barnard Castle to test your eye sight - but this is not an excuse in law.

The big flaw is that you are declaring it an offense.

It wasn't.

But another flaw is your claim that he went to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight. It was his wife who was concerned. He was prepared to go straight to London.

From his statement.
On Sunday 12 April, 15 days after I had first displayed symptoms, I decided to return to work. My wife was very worried, particularly given my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease. She didn't want to risk a nearly 300-mile drive with our child, given how ill I had been.

[Muddy Retriever]

Good idea! Dunno which is the best newspaper to contact to rally support.

The Guardian?

I think it's the least they can do. Apparently a "witness" who claimed to have seen Cummings on a second visit to Durham on April 19th now admits he made it up. He is supposedly a keen runner and doctored his Strava activity.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/d...-a4455501.html

So presumably the Guardian will be now be issuing a full page apology to Cummings, whilst obviously putting its weight behind Oracle's Thursday clap campaign.

[anthonykay]

From his statement.
On Sunday 12 April, 15 days after I had first displayed symptoms, I decided to return to work. My wife was very worried, particularly given my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease. She didn't want to risk a nearly 300-mile drive with our child, given how ill I had been.

There was still a good train service running between London and Durham, with social distancing measures in place on trains and at stations. Seems a lot more safe and sensible than driving a long distance when you're not really feeling up to it. And after all, he had an excellent case for saying that the travel was essential.

[Witton Park]

There was still a good train service running between London and Durham, with social distancing measures in place on trains and at stations. Seems a lot more safe and sensible than driving a long distance when you're not really feeling up to it. And after all, he had an excellent case for saying that the travel was essential.

He was still feeling OK to drive when they went up. He was concerned that he might become ill because he was working closely with others that had including Johnson and Hancock.