Dominic Cummings

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.

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

Yes this, absolutely.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

We have the highest death rate in Europe. That's what will be remembered. Even with the vaccine.

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.

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.

I'm not actually damning Cummings.

I am just wondering why now people are hanging on his every word.

I voted for Remain.

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

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.

Yes Maybe, I am. Because I think we need to get back to something more akin to normal doesn’t mean we should have a premature inquiry. We need to see what happens when something more like normal life returns before the effects of Covid can be fully evaluated. We cannot evaluate properly whilst the world is still in the middle of a pandemic, but because vaccination has been/is being rolled out so successfully in this country, it should give us considerably more freedom. If some people feel safer by continuing to isolate or not circulate very freely that’s fine, but they should not expect to impose that on others.

MayBee70

Am I imagining it or are many of the people arguing that the inquiry should wait till next year because ‘we’re still in the middle of a pandemic’ the very ones that are saying life should go back to normal ASAP because we’re ok now?

I rather think you are MayBee. Just as many of those who were happy that any means was okay to get "Brexit" but are now charging the leading light of "Brexit" with doing what they once praised him for.

GrannyGravy13

Exactly Peasblossom what lies are in fact true, and what truths are actually lies?

There can be many enquiries, but it all boils down to each members version of the truth (as does any enquiry)

More whataboutery. An enquiry would take evidence from all and reach conclusions about what could be prevented in the future and how. That is what we need.

Everyone has a bias which is why evidence is taken from many not just one person IN AN ENQUIRY and it is analysed by those with knowledge of the subject and those with knowledge of law. The Johnson party are currently denying to the people of this country including the bereaved.

Not me, Maybee70

Am I imagining it or are many of the people arguing that the inquiry should wait till next year because ‘we’re still in the middle of a pandemic’ the very ones that are saying life should go back to normal ASAP because we’re ok now?

So if documentation and records show that Cummings is right in some of his evidence, then we have no other choice but to accept the”truth” of his evidence.

Kali2

The more important question right now is 'is it a coup' or...

No coup just a sad little man who was sacked and is now on the world stage throwing people under the proverbial bus (apart from his (he hopes) next employer!!