Dominic Cummings

Whitewavemark2

I do wonder if those damning Cummings for the lies he spun yesterday are wondering about Brexit now and the lies he told us before and since the referendum.

Turn that on its head...

Maybe all the people believing Dominic Cummings evidence yesterday are now wondering if what he said during the 2016 Brexit Campaig was/ could become true?

Sadly the numbers are not fully counted yet Daisymae so I think the jury’s out on your statement.

Did I mishear or did Cummings say he did not go to Cumbria because of no one to look after his son if both he and his wife went down with Covid, but because he and his family were being threatened with violence? So another lie in the Rose Garden which does not smell sweet. It did sound rather odd at the time. What about his trip to Barnard Castle - has he given the real reason for that? I am sure the eyesight thing was eyewash.

You can’t believe the man, but it can start a trail for corrobative evidence. Although some are already denying what he says. The psychologists or whatever who advised Sage say they did not advise that the British Public would not accept another lockdown.

“ Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first start to deceive.” It needs untangling to find anything approximating the truth.

GrannyGravy13

PippaZ just because you do not agree with someone’s opinion/narrative does not mean it is whataboutery

An enquiry has to delve through the minutia of evidence, discard the lies and false/constructed evidence and draw a conclusion.

Is there something in any recent inquiries terms of reference that says anything about the panel having to discard the lies and false/constructed evidence? As far as I am aware they will look at:

*What happened?
*Why did it happen and who is to blame?
*What can be done to prevent this from happening again?

They are not there to make a judgement on individual witnesses in the way you suggest but look at the evidence using their prior knowledge of the subject and/or the law, depending on their background.

This is not a court of law it is an inquiry. They will look at the weight of evidence from more than one source and ask the questions whose answers they want to hear. A good chair will not even be hearing some of the things said about people personally yesterday but will be hearing the many facts that Cummings and others provide, along with contemporaneous documents and will they be able to draw conclusions from that.

25Avalon his latest truth is that a large baying mob had gathered outside his home threatening to break in a kill all the occupants.

The sensible thing to do would have been to alert the police as a gathering of any sort was against Covid rules/guidelines and death threats are against the law.

PippaZ you are trying to create something out of my posts which they are not.

Enquiry - to sift through evidence and take statements and ultimately come to a conclusion, discarding along the way what in their opinion are lies and non-consequential.

I am perfectly aware that a public enquiry is not a Court of Law

Yes, that’s what I heard him say then GG13. I suppose you could call the press a baying mob but I don’t believe they threatened to break in and kill his family. As you say, why didn’t he call the police at the time and why make up a story?

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

I do wonder if those damning Cummings for the lies he spun yesterday are wondering about Brexit now and the lies he told us before and since the referendum.

Turn that on its head...

Maybe all the people believing Dominic Cummings evidence yesterday are now wondering if what he said during the 2016 Brexit Campaig was/ could become true?

Cummings evidence will only be believed when he can substantiate his evidence.

You can’t trust a liar can you?

Whatever else we may disagree on, I suspect that all of us can believe that Dominic Cummings has lied. I guess an inquiry would try to establish the truth from the various conflicting things he has claimed. They will need to look at other sources to try to establish the truth.

There are some big assumptions being made here, we have no idea if the police were involved in investigating any death threats made before he went to Durham or not, do we?

Cummings evidence will only be believed when he can substantiate his evidence.

Yes this, absolutely.

Matt Hancock has just been asked a really good question (which he has avoided answering).

Neale Hanvey: Did the Secretary of State, as alledged, categorically tell Mr Cummings and unspecified others, that people would be tested before being transferred into care homes and, if he did not, why then was 'transfer without testing' the adopted policy of England and the devolved governments, including Scotland.

We need the answer to this.

Whitewavemark2

I do wonder if those damning Cummings for the lies he spun yesterday are wondering about Brexit now and the lies he told us before and since the referendum.

"“True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.” This certainly has the ring of current truth. Many of the vote leave crowd never wanted the truth; they were happy for ignorance to win the day.

maddyone

It would be preferable to have this discussion without bringing Brexit into it. This discussion is about Dominic Cummings evidence yesterday.

Who decided that maddyone? The title is Dominic Cummings. The OP gives reference to yesterday but does not put any limit on "Dominic Cummings" as far as I can see.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

I do wonder if those damning Cummings for the lies he spun yesterday are wondering about Brexit now and the lies he told us before and since the referendum.

Turn that on its head...

Maybe all the people believing Dominic Cummings evidence yesterday are now wondering if what he said during the 2016 Brexit Campaig was/ could become true?

It keeps being suggested that people believe what was said yesterday. It may be your way to decide, there and then, about what was said but it is not a question of what people believed, but that it raises more questions and supports some previously reached opinions.

No one can come to any conclusion until we have an INQUIRY, which the Johnson government is delaying.

Gannygangan

*There were over 695.8 thousand deaths in the United Kingdom in 2020, compared with 604 thousand in 2019.*

So by my calculation we had 90 thousand excess deaths.

www.statista.com/statistics/281488/number-of-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

Aah! But we didn't have many cases of flu last winter so you can increase your 90,000 figure by the number that usually succumb to flu. The BMJ say that between 10,000 and 25,000 people die from flu each year.

Secondly, the number of deaths from covid is over a period longer than 12 months.

Urmstongran

At the end of the day the thing that people will remember is the success of the vaccine programme.

It’s freed the nation. This is what people will remember.

I really don't think all "people" are that shallow.

He’s out for revenge pure and simple and the ones on here demonising him not so long ago are now salivating with pleasure at what he’s now doing. He was responsible for Sajid Javid resigning too.

The hypocrisy shown on this forum by certain posters over all kinds of threads is eye opening. Lots of would be politicians methinks.

GrannyGravy13

25Avalon his latest truth is that a large baying mob had gathered outside his home threatening to break in a kill all the occupants.

The sensible thing to do would have been to alert the police as a gathering of any sort was against Covid rules/guidelines and death threats are against the law.

It wouldn't suprise me if he felt like that. Trial by baying mob seems to be what we have decended to. I sincerely hope we put all this on a proper footing, with and inquiry, as soon as possible so we can leave both the mob and the hyperbole behind.

maddyone

Whatever else we may disagree on, I suspect that all of us can believe that Dominic Cummings has lied. I guess an inquiry would try to establish the truth from the various conflicting things he has claimed. They will need to look at other sources to try to establish the truth.

They would not be trying to establish 'his' truth Maddyone, but the overall truth. His would be part of the views explored as would the fact that those involved would have to answer all the questions they have so far avoided.

Apparently Cummings has offered MPs documents, emails etc to support his claims. I suspect that this is going to run and run.

On his return from Durham and Barnard Castle he did have a baying mob of journalists outside his home which many on GN thought he deserved.

So is there a situation whereby a baying mob is in the right?

Well at least he made Bernard Castle famous.

“ However, I am still bewildered as to why Cummings appears to have turned into a white knight when posters on this very thread were ripping him to pieces last year. ”.
I have yet to see anyone doing this.

The point is if the man has evidence it matters not that he is a weasel .

They would not be trying to establish ‘his’ truth Maddyone.....

Where did I say they would be trying to establish his truth? I said that they would try to establish the truth. Don’t put words in my mouth!