Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

The fact that Cummings made the trip is becoming less of an issue than the whole web of lies surrounding the story. 

When it comes out that Cummings DID go against guidance, and the light gets shined on the Governments web of lies, Will Cummings get thrown under the bus to try and manage the story?

This is just example of the mess this government has created during this pandemic.

20,000 they said would be a good outcome... 36,675 as of today and rising!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi all, An announcement from OVF Towers... this evening I will be putting a few things in place to hopefully help some users out during the pandemic,  particularly during the self-isolation perio

I am a law abiding citizen. I have never even had a parking ticket and I am in my 60th year. I accept that the Government has had a very difficult job but they have made a complete horlicks of it. The

My mother in law lives in Birmingham and alone. She has dementia and we get home help for her 3 or 4 days a week. My wife tries to get to see her  as much as possible so my brother in law has been doi

Posted Images

43 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

A bit suspicious that 2 witnesses come forward 6 weeks later having seemingly not gone to the press before now? Or have the press sat on this info?

Who says they only came forward "six weeks later" - if there's no evidence of that then isn't that merely your own presumption/speculation?

From what I have seen of the Guardian's reporting of this, this has been a long investigation over many weeks, with fact checking and questions submitted to the Cummins.

For instance, they report "The Guardian first asked Downing Street on 5 April about whether Dominic Cummings had travelled to County Durham during the height of the lockdown." so these reports have conceivably been put together weeks ago.

The fact the story was published today doesn't neccessarily mean the witness comments have only just been made. They could have been made today, yesterday or in April...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, robf said:

Correct. It isn't simply about family visits.

According to the two new independent witnesses he was also looking at bluebells in a Durham wood with his wife (you know, the one who was infected and could pass it on to other people). That's got beggar all to do with visiting his family or the welfare of his son...

"was heard commenting on how “lovely” the bluebells were during an early morning Sunday stroll with his wife Mary Wakefield."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/23/new-witnesses-cast-doubt-on-dominic-cummingss-lockdown-claims

I'd like to correct an error in the above. It appears this visit took place after they had both recovered from the symptoms so his wife wasn't carrying the virus at the time. 

According to the timeline in the Guardian - the Cummins first travelled to Durham on the 5th April. They were photographed at Downing St on 14th April and the visit to the woods was 19th April.

Unfortunately for the Cummins, it then raises the question - after returning to London from their first visit, why were they travelling back up to Durham when there was no need for "urgent childcare" (no one was ill) for a second time in a matter of weeks when the rest of the country had been told to stay at home in order to save lives and protect the NHS?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Regal Beagle said:

I would just like to declare to OVF now that I will be going to Tesco on tuesday or Wenesday next week, for essentials. 

 

Will you be going, doing you shopping, taking it home and then going back to hang around Tesco for no discernible reason... you shouldn’t do that. It’s against guidelines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting... Government seems to be doubling down. Does this constitute a denial. Should it now be proven to be true then this looks very bad indeed.

I thought Boris would be smart enough to throw Cummings under the bus. Maybe the prime minister isn’t the man holding all the cards here! 
 

16FA1B93-BF57-4E17-BF50-232174A0D2EE.jpeg.95fd2f0baf5f092a379ee0890a8372f0.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add some balance:

 

Quote

 

A No 10 spokeswoman tonight said: 'Yesterday the Mirror and Guardian wrote inaccurate stories about Mr Cummings.

'Today they are writing more inaccurate stories including claims that Mr Cummings returned to Durham after returning to work in Downing Street on 14 April.

'We will not waste our time answering a stream of false allegations about Mr Cummings from campaigning newspapers.'  

 


 

Quote

 

And a statement from Durham Constabulary tonight:

'Following a significant number of media inquiries over the weekend, Durham Constabulary can add the following detail.

'On Tuesday, March 31, our officers were made aware that Dominic Cummings had travelled from London to Durham and was present at an address in the city.

'At the request of Mr Cummings' father, an officer made contact the following morning by telephone.

'During that conversation, Mr Cummings' father confirmed that his son had travelled with his family from London to the North-East and was self-isolating in part of the property.

'Durham Constabulary deemed that no further action was required. However, the officer did provide advice in relation to security issues.'  

 

 

 

This is how I currently see the allegations given what we currently know:

 

-Traveling to Durham whilst self isolating

This is not disputed.

Would have breached lockdown rules had he not had a legitimate reason - caring for his young child, as outlined by DMO Jenny Harries on 23rd March

No action from police who merely advised his father on security

-Unnamed Neighbour saw him at parents property

Very possible, if he was in a self contained granny flat on the same land as his parents house which is being reported as a farm with multiple outbuildings in which he could have self contained in.

No evidence of law breaking and witness declines to be named

No action from police who merely advised his father on security

-Named witness claims to have seen him in public 30 miles from parents home on 12th April

Possible - He was known to be in Durham and the witness is named, both adding weight to the allegations.

We don't know why he was allegedly in public or if he had a legitimate excuse, we also don't have any alleged wrong doing seen as this was the 14th day after he was apparently self-isolating, and it's not a breach of any law in itself to simply be out in public as long as you are adhering to social distancing rules.

-Unnamed witness claims to see him in Durham again, days after he is known to have returned to work

No other details other than that he was admiring bluebells. You can either believe this or not, but it's a bit rich to get judgey over someone who thinks this one sounds like <ovf censored>.

-Number 10 spokeswomen refers to Friday's and Saturdays stories as being untrue

As above

 

 

Personally I'd believe a Government spokesperson over an unnamed witness in a newspaper that has an axe to grind with Cummings and has likely sat on their information for weeks for no apparent reason. I'd especially believe the Government spokesperson who makes this statement when there is intense pressure to sack (or for him to resign). I would think that if there's any chance of this blowing back in their face that they would have to deal with it now rather than double down on this "lie" to protect him.

 

Just my opinion based on the evidence that I've seen before anyone gets too upset.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Now talk that the child stayed with them in the house in Durham... if this is true it’s looking very dodgy indeed.

38B9B394-8171-4588-8CCC-1555B24ABE98.jpeg

I think the wordings are very important from any statement from Cummings. As far as I am aware (and I'm happy to be proven wrong here) he has never said the child stayed with reletives. The reasonable excuse was that he wanted to be around family in case he and his wife became too ill to look after the child. That's how I've read it anyway.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Just to add some balance:

 


 

 

 

This is how I currently see the allegations given what we currently know:

 

-Traveling to Durham whilst self isolating

This is not disputed.

Would have breached lockdown rules had he not had a legitimate reason - caring for his young child, as outlined by DMO Jenny Harries on 23rd March

No action from police who merely advised his father on security

-Unnamed Neighbour saw him at parents property

Very possible, if he was in a self contained granny flat on the same land as his parents house which is being reported as a farm with multiple outbuildings in which he could have self contained in.

No evidence of law breaking and witness declines to be named

No action from police who merely advised his father on security

-Named witness claims to have seen him in public 30 miles from parents home on 12th April

Possible - He was known to be in Durham and the witness is named, both adding weight to the allegations.

We don't know why he was allegedly in public or if he had a legitimate excuse, we also don't have any alleged wrong doing seen as this was the 14th day after he was apparently self-isolating, and it's not a breach of any law in itself to simply be out in public as long as you are adhering to social distancing rules.

-Unnamed witness claims to see him in Durham again, days after he is known to have returned to work

No other details other than that he was admiring bluebells. You can either believe this or not, but it's a bit rich to get judgey over someone who thinks this one sounds like <ovf censored>.

-Number 10 spokeswomen refers to Friday's and Saturdays stories as being untrue

As above

 

 

Personally I'd believe a Government spokesperson over an unnamed witness in a newspaper that has an axe to grind with Cummings and has likely sat on their information for weeks for no apparent reason. I'd especially believe the Government spokesperson who makes this statement when there is intense pressure to sack (or for him to resign). I would think that if there's any chance of this blowing back in their face that they would have to deal with it now rather than double down on this "lie" to protect him.

 

Just my opinion based on the evidence that I've seen before anyone gets too upset.

 

 

Looks like it’s not just the government doubling down in its defence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

I think the wordings are very important from any statement from Cummings. As far as I am aware (and I'm happy to be proven wrong here) he has never said the child stayed with reletives. The reasonable excuse was that he wanted to be around family in case he and his wife became too ill to look after the child. That's how I've read it anyway.

 

 

 

Which in that case is in clear contradiction to the guidance ... do not go to a second home.

This is really weak RB... doesn’t his sister in law lives close by in london, near his primary residence. 
 

Edited by Iron Curtain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Iron Curtain said:

Which in that case is in clear contradiction to the guidance ... do not go to a second home.

This is really weak RB... his sister in law lives close by in london, near his primary residence. 
 

He wasn't "going to a second home" he was moving to be closer to his extended family in case he needed their help in looking after his child in the very real possibility that him and his wife would be really sick very shortly. Nothing about visting family, nothing about a second home. Everything about provisions for child care.

 

Your argument is very weak - who are you to judge who should look after anyones child in the face of a serious illness? How do you know his sister in law is willing to look after the child? Does she have any vulnerable people at her home, is she self isolating? It's just not an argument you can possibly use unless we know every bit of relevant information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Looks like it’s not just the government doubling down in its defence. 

I've at least tried to be objective and constructive. The evidence of wrong-doing is pretty much non-existent, your best shot is "someone said they saw him looking at bluebells going "oooh they're nice"".

Is it even true though? You have nothing more than that to go off and you are happy to say it is true, but seemingly not happy for me to say why it sounds dodgy?

 

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong, in your opinion of course.

Edited by Regal Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

He wasn't "going to a second home" he was moving to be closer to his extended family in case he needed their help in looking after his child in the very real possibility that him and his wife would be really sick very shortly. Nothing about visting family, nothing about a second home. Everything about provisions for child care.

 

Your argument is very weak - who are you to judge who should look after anyones child in the face of a serious illness? How do you know his sister in law is willing to look after the child? Does she have any vulnerable people at her home, is she self isolating? It's just not an argument you can possibly use unless we know every bit of relevant information.

You love facts.

Fact one... it’s not his primary home.

Fact two... he went there.

Fact three... guidance said you shouldn’t go to a second home.

I can’t even imagine the number of people Who would have done similar if they hadn’t been following the guidance. Who have struggled through, in pain because they were doing as was requested. 

Did he come back to London and then go back up? It’s not certain yet, but if he did will you finally accept that a) he did wrong and b) it’s been covered up by the current government?

Edited by Iron Curtain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • robf locked this topic
  • robf unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Moderators don't read everything. Please don't assume we'll spot rule breaking (e.g. personal abuse) - use the orange report button above a post to alert them.

    If you can't get on with another forum user you can select the "ignore" option. Simply click on the link below, type in their username and save - Click here




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy