Jump to content

Coronavirus


robf

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TheSage said:

Leader of the Tories in Scotland. But I'm guessing by your post you don't agree that he's a senior minister. Wouldn't you have said that Ruth Davison was a senior figure?

It's not a junior ministerial appointment is it? Not that it matters. But it's been headline news for most of today.

Yes,I posted about it a few hours ago.I thought you meant someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

A reminder to all to attack the argument and NOT the person. 

Please do not resort to personal abuse. It weakens your argument, offends others and ultimately could result in you being banned.

You all agreed to the rules when you signed up an account for this forum so repeated breaches of them could result in a ban.

Thanks,

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSage said:

Maybe Cummings had permission from Johnson to do what he did and the PM is up to his neck in all this??

Over the years since I've been following the political scene, back to the fifties, I can't remember an incident of such obvious embarrassment and guilt in government circles that hasn't led to a resignation or a sacking. Strange and unsavoury times.

Did taking back sovereignty mean we have a secret president who can do what he wants and make Trump type speeches in the Rose Garden?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When filling up tomorrow I shall be nipping in to buy a daily star for the first time ever, simply because I'm going to have to fcking see this dystopian nightmare in the flesh for myself.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY-QmdeX0AEjW9n?format=jpg&name=large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robf said:

Hi all,

A reminder to all to attack the argument and NOT the person. 

Please do not resort to personal abuse. It weakens your argument, offends others and ultimately could result in you being banned.

You all agreed to the rules when you signed up an account for this forum so repeated breaches of them could result in a ban.

Thanks,

Rob

Rob, does the no personal abuse just mean of posters on here?  Can we still take the piss out of Cummings?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Could be a Brexit secret,  related to his time in Russia,  maybe loads of stuff we don`t have a sniff of.

 

So Dominic Cummings claim that he was testing whether he was fit to drive from Durham to London by going on a 30 minute drive down the road is actually so unbelievable that we think the most logical explanations is as follows:

 

The true motive behind the 30 minute drive (which we don't know exists, and if it does, we don't know what it is) is that damaging to Cummings that he is blackmailing the PM and Cabinet with information (which we don't know exists) so that they blindly defend his indefensible actions of driving for 30 minutes down the road with what is perceived to be an invalid or untrue excuse. And the Russians probably have something to do with it to.

 

Is that what we're going with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

 

He edited a blog.

He is guilty of editing a blog.

He should be sacked as editing a blog is probably against the law.

 

 

 

He endangered the lives of his family by driving with impaired vision.

He endangered the lives of others by driving with impaired vision.

He endangered the lives of others by driving an infected person to another area..

He endangered the NHS by carrying an infected person to another area.

He has opened the floodgates to people abusing the lockdown, in whatever form, by supplying the, seemingly, acceptable excuse of..... just in case.... and.... testing my ability.

I think he should be sacked because he is a lying ****weasel but that's just my opinion bearing in mind I think all politicians lie but not all lie so poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

 

So Dominic Cummings claim that he was testing whether he was fit to drive from Durham to London by going on a 30 minute drive down the road is actually so unbelievable that we think the most logical explanations is as follows:

 

The true motive behind the 30 minute drive (which we don't know exists, and if it does, we don't know what it is) is that damaging to Cummings that he is blackmailing the PM and Cabinet with information (which we don't know exists) so that they blindly defend his indefensible actions of driving for 30 minutes down the road with what is perceived to be an invalid or untrue excuse. And the Russians probably have something to do with it to.

 

Is that what we're going with?

IF an intelligent person were to drive to test their vision surely they would use that intelligence to drive 15 miles in the direction they needed to travel.

If they were able to drive they would continue on their rout, if not they would return to their original starting point.

I would suggest anyone "testing their vision" by driving a vehicle containing their family any distance, endangering their lives and other road users and pedestrians lives, is one brain cell short of a pair.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, geosname said:

He endangered the lives of his family by driving with impaired vision.

He endangered the lives of others by driving with impaired vision.

He endangered the lives of others by driving an infected person to another area..

He endangered the NHS by carrying an infected person to another area.

He has opened the floodgates to people abusing the lockdown, in whatever form, by supplying the, seemingly, acceptable excuse of..... just in case.... and.... testing my ability.

I think he should be sacked because he is a lying ****weasel but that's just my opinion bearing in mind I think all politicians lie but not all lie so poorly.

 

For him to be guilty of endangering lives by driving with impaired vision then we must accept that it was true that his vision had been impaired. A lot of people in this thread are hinging their whole opinion of this on that being a lie.

 

I would dispute that he endangered anyones life to be honest. He appears to have taken great measures to ensure he did not endanger anyone else. The trip to Durham could fall under the exceptional circumstance clauses set out by the Government and it would seem that he obeyed the spirit of the law by avoiding other people and observing the 14 day self isolation period to the best of his ability in his circumstances.

The second trip is the sticky point, firstly whether it is believable that the drive was to test fitness for his long drive to London, secondly whether that is a valid excuse to be driving. Both of which are at least debatable.

 

All politicians lie, I will agree with that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, geosname said:

IF an intelligent person were to drive to test their vision surely they would use that intelligence to drive 15 miles in the direction they needed to travel.

If they were able to drive they would continue on their rout, if not they would return to their original starting point.

I would suggest anyone "testing their vision" by driving a vehicle containing their family any distance, endangering their lives and other road users and pedestrians lives, is one brain cell short of a pair.

Possibly Geo, despite the desperation of some people to label me as completely unreasonable and blinded by my partisan support of Dominic Cummings, I actually said that this is the part I have the least faith in.

Driving to Castle Barnard is clearly a conscious choice he made and definitely a lapse in judgement. I just don't think the test drive story is particularly unreasonable in and of itself. If you put yourself in his shoes for 1 minute though, it might not even occur to you that this will all blow up in the media 2 months later and how will it look if I drive north/east/west instead of south for 30 minutes.

Do we think that if he had of driven 30 minutes south as his test drive (not to a local beauty spot for example) that his test drive story would be acceptable?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, geosname said:

Are you suggesting that driving on a public road with impaired vision is not a danger?

Or did he lie?

Not suggesting that for one minute. I'm saying that it seems to be generally accepted that he made up the test drive impaired vision story to cover up his true motivation for driving to Barnard castle.

If that part is made up then he cannot be guilty of driving with impaird vision.

 

If we are saying that he was driving to test his vision, then that surely adds weight to his excuse that he was testing his fitness for a longer a drive. If this is the case then it would appear that he passed this test as he drove home the next day, meaning that he possibly never operated the car with impaired vision at all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...