Cummings investigated by police

[John52]

Barryd999 - 2020-06-03 11:00 PM

 

John52 - 2020-06-03 3:13 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-03 9:53 AM

 

 

It seems even our resident lock down rule breaker and illegal wild camper has been there to have a look.

 

 

Rule breaker perhaps - depends whose rules. Councils and police forces seem to have been making up their own to suit the local nimbys they represent.

But, as far as I know, I haven't broken any laws.

People who accuse me of law breaking have yet to say exactly what law I have broken.

 

The Police are issuing £100 Covid fines for anyone staying overnight in a Camper van because its currently against the law. Even full timers without a home to go to are facing issues and getting fined. You have a home, you broke the law and continue to do so. Its as simple as that, end of.

 

for the umpteenth time - against what law?

One of the disasters the powers that be have created is issuing guidance without putting it into law.

I don't know whether this is through incompetence, or deliberate to set the plebs fighting amongst themselves - divide and rule - to take our attention away from their own ignoring the law.

The police are issuing Covid fines that are unenforceable because,

 

like you, they still can't point out what law its against.

 

Apparently D&C police were telling people they couldn't drive to take exercise, then had to back down when someone pointed out there was no law against it. Certainly their notices I saw on Hayle Millennium walk car park were removed. (and not by me)

[John52]

globebuster - 2020-06-03 11:55 PM

 

 

If you'd parked up in field and kept your trap shut you might have got away with it.

 

 

(!)

 

I can see no sense in that whatsoever.

That would have certainly attracted attention.

And who would want to spend all the record period of sunshine in a field, let alone the same field?

[John52]

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 5:57 AM

 

 

 

I would say a £1000 fine for anyone flouting the rules would focus a few. £100 is nothing

 

Irrespective of the amount, it would focus me on challenging it in court when no one can point out what law it is supposed to be contravening.

But its never got to court, just a few threatograms and nothing more when they realised they hadn't got a leg to stand on (lol)

[Barryd999]

John52 - 2020-06-04 8:49 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-03 11:00 PM

 

John52 - 2020-06-03 3:13 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-03 9:53 AM

 

 

It seems even our resident lock down rule breaker and illegal wild camper has been there to have a look.

 

 

Rule breaker perhaps - depends whose rules. Councils and police forces seem to have been making up their own to suit the local nimbys they represent.

But, as far as I know, I haven't broken any laws.

People who accuse me of law breaking have yet to say exactly what law I have broken.

 

The Police are issuing £100 Covid fines for anyone staying overnight in a Camper van because its currently against the law. Even full timers without a home to go to are facing issues and getting fined. You have a home, you broke the law and continue to do so. Its as simple as that, end of.

 

for the umpteenth time - against what law?

One of the disasters the powers that be have created is issuing guidance without putting it into law.

I don't know whether this is through incompetence, or deliberate to set the plebs fighting amongst themselves - divide and rule - to take our attention away from their own ignoring the law.

The police are issuing Covid fines that are unenforceable because,

 

like you, they still can't point out what law its against.

 

Apparently D&C police were telling people they couldn't drive to take exercise, then had to back down when someone pointed out there was no law against it. Certainly their notices I saw on Hayle Millennium walk car park were removed. (and not by me)

 

Here you go. These were in force while you were touring in your van.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

 

I may have missed it but please point out to me where in the list of exemptions for leaving your home it states motorhoming and staying overnight on holiday is one of them?

 

Perhaps you will find it in the rest of the legislation although somehow I doubt it.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

 

Of course its been relaxed somewhat now but still I see no mention of staying overnight in your camper van being allowed unless you are an essential worker or its your only home.

 

From 1 June, anyone in England can be outside without needing a reasonable excuse. If someone wants to take a long car journey, they no longer need to explain themselves - providing they're returning home that day.

 

For the first time since the lockdown began, people in England can stay overnight away from home for a range of specific reasons that include:

 

Attending a funeral

For reasonably necessary work

To provide care, or to avoid injury or harm.

 

So it seems you were breaking the law and till are even under the relaxed rules.

[Brian Kirby]

Agreed, but John basically argues that if staying in his motorhome isn't specifically banned by statute it remains permissible. It is the most transparently self-serving justification for doing as he does. He feigns great regard for the disadvantaged, while disregarding his basic civic duty to act in the best collective interest of society as a whole.

 

The law was introduced, apparently reluctantly, by the government in order to reduce the rate at which the virus spreads. It cannot be all encompassing, unless we are to accept a "proper" lockdown, as latterly introduced for example in Spain, France, and Italy, where declarations as to one's reason for being out in public had to be carried, and people were penalised if their actions and whereabouts did not match the declaration.

 

Our version is backed by legislation, but relies on public cooperation to a higher standard than mere legal compliance if it is to work as intended. It's one of those unwritten laws of fair play that society relies on for smooth functioning. John is simply using the "Cummings defence" of "I know doing what I want is outside the spirit of the law, but it isn't actually illegal so I'll do it anyway". Like Cummings, he seems mildly discombobulated by the difference between the two concepts. It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience. It is the equivalent of a fart in a church.

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 12:41 PM ..... John is simply using the "Cummings defence" of "I know doing what I want is outside the spirit of the law, but it isn't actually illegal so I'll do it anyway". Like Cummings, he seems mildly discombobulated by the difference between the two concepts. It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience. It is the equivalent of a fart in a church.

 

Brian, your final paragraph completely misrepresents what DC said in his defence (as you put it, although of course he was never prosecuted) and substitutes your own fanciful criticisms. Comparing DC to our resident idiot John52 is a grossly unfair act, even if you don't like either of them.

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2020-06-04 12:57 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 12:41 PM ..... John is simply using the "Cummings defence" of "I know doing what I want is outside the spirit of the law, but it isn't actually illegal so I'll do it anyway". Like Cummings, he seems mildly discombobulated by the difference between the two concepts. It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience. It is the equivalent of a fart in a church.

 

Brian, your final paragraph completely misrepresents what DC said in his defence (as you put it, although of course he was never prosecuted) and substitutes your own fanciful criticisms. Comparing DC to our resident idiot John52 is a grossly unfair act, even if you don't like either of them.

Go on then Stuart, show me where it misrepresents - though I note you've snipped my para in order to make your allegation. :-D

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 1:04 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-06-04 12:57 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 12:41 PM ..... John is simply using the "Cummings defence" of "I know doing what I want is outside the spirit of the law, but it isn't actually illegal so I'll do it anyway". Like Cummings, he seems mildly discombobulated by the difference between the two concepts. It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience. It is the equivalent of a fart in a church.

 

Brian, your final paragraph completely misrepresents what DC said in his defence (as you put it, although of course he was never prosecuted) and substitutes your own fanciful criticisms. Comparing DC to our resident idiot John52 is a grossly unfair act, even if you don't like either of them.

Go on then Stuart, show me where it misrepresents - though I note you've snipped my para in order to make your allegation. :-D

 

You used quotes to attribute something to DC which he never said for a start.

 

And where is your evidence for "It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience." Have you conducted a survey or somehow been elected to represent "so many"?

[Guest pelmetman]

StuartO - 2020-06-04 1:14 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 1:04 PM

 

StuartO - 2020-06-04 12:57 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 12:41 PM ..... John is simply using the "Cummings defence" of "I know doing what I want is outside the spirit of the law, but it isn't actually illegal so I'll do it anyway". Like Cummings, he seems mildly discombobulated by the difference between the two concepts. It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience. It is the equivalent of a fart in a church.

 

Brian, your final paragraph completely misrepresents what DC said in his defence (as you put it, although of course he was never prosecuted) and substitutes your own fanciful criticisms. Comparing DC to our resident idiot John52 is a grossly unfair act, even if you don't like either of them.

Go on then Stuart, show me where it misrepresents - though I note you've snipped my para in order to make your allegation. :-D

 

You used quotes to attribute something to DC which he never said for a start.

 

And where is your evidence for "It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience." Have you conducted a survey or somehow been elected to represent "so many"?

 

" Have you conducted a survey or somehow been elected to represent "so many"?

 

:D .........

 

 

[Barryd999]

Well it seems there is little doubt now that Cummings little Jolly and rule breaking has influenced many, especially the young to flout the rules.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/06/03/one-five-have-started-breaking-lockdown-rules-more

 

Polls are usually a few percent either way in the accuracy but even if it was way off the mark and only 1% were breaking the rules because of Cummings then its 1% too many that could be enough to actually lead to the deaths of innocent law abiding people.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 2:38 PM

 

Well it seems there is little doubt now that Cummings little Jolly and rule breaking has influenced many, especially the young to flout the rules.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/06/03/one-five-have-started-breaking-lockdown-rules-more

 

Polls are usually a few percent either way in the accuracy but even if it was way off the mark and only 1% were breaking the rules because of Cummings then its 1% too many that could be enough to actually lead to the deaths of innocent law abiding people.

 

So 32% of the 21% that weren't ars*d about following the rules....... blame Cummings for their lack of moral compass *-) .........

 

How very Loony Liberal Loser Brigade >:-) .........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2020-06-04 1:14 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 1:04 PM

StuartO - 2020-06-04 12:57 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 12:41 PM ..... John is simply using the "Cummings defence" of "I know doing what I want is outside the spirit of the law, but it isn't actually illegal so I'll do it anyway". Like Cummings, he seems mildly discombobulated by the difference between the two concepts. It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience. It is the equivalent of a fart in a church.

Brian, your final paragraph completely misrepresents what DC said in his defence (as you put it, although of course he was never prosecuted) and substitutes your own fanciful criticisms. Comparing DC to our resident idiot John52 is a grossly unfair act, even if you don't like either of them.

Go on then Stuart, show me where it misrepresents - though I note you've snipped my para in order to make your allegation. :-D

You used quotes to attribute something to DC which he never said for a start.

And where is your evidence for "It isn't the actual law breaking that rankles with so many, it is that the actions in both cases are a breach of the good faith that others have elected to observe - in many cases at considerable personal cost and inconvenience." Have you conducted a survey or somehow been elected to represent "so many"?

Blimey, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel! :-) I did not preface the quotes with "Cummings said" and the fact that my sentence reads "John is simply using the "Cummings defence" of" is surely sufficient indication that I am "quoting" a perceived sentiment, and not actual speech? The quotes relate to the underlying sentiment, and not the actual words spoken. Your point addresses the grammatical use of quotation marks, not the facts as presented. I think what I said very fairly represents someone who, knowing what behaviour is expected of them nevertheless does otherwise and, despite widespread disapproval, remains unapologetic for so doing.

 

As to what rankles with whom, my evidence is all around us in the public domain. It is common knowledge, and can (still!) be seen and heard from multiple sources, the newspapers, the radio and TV, parliament, and the media generally. Surely you're not trying to claim that you were unaware of the extraordinary wall of public disapproval of Cummings actions, and resorting to the "Birdbrain defence" of "prove it"? If an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I'm not sure what an overabundance of evidence establishes, but it can hardly be an absence!

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2020-06-04 2:49 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 2:38 PM

 

Well it seems there is little doubt now that Cummings little Jolly and rule breaking has influenced many, especially the young to flout the rules.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/06/03/one-five-have-started-breaking-lockdown-rules-more

 

Polls are usually a few percent either way in the accuracy but even if it was way off the mark and only 1% were breaking the rules because of Cummings then its 1% too many that could be enough to actually lead to the deaths of innocent law abiding people.

 

So 32% of the 21% that weren't ars*d about following the rules....... blame Cummings for their lack of moral compass *-) .........

 

How very Loony Liberal Loser Brigade >:-) .........

 

 

That depends how you interpret the results but its pretty shocking that 1 in 5 are now flouting the rules. As I said even if just 1% of them have done so because of Cummings (and its clearly way more than that) its enough IMO to make his position untenable and yes before anyone starts, that goes for the rest of them as well, Labour or Tories. The Difference is the Cummings debacle was huge, he is one of the people in power setting the rules, writing the slogans and telling our confused and bewildered PM what to do. Nothing to do with Loony Liberals or "Losers" either. The vast majority of Tory, Liberal and Labour voters agree.

[StuartO]

Well Brian, knowing as I do from your postings of the last few weeks, that you are never wrong in your own eyes and you will argue endlessly that some nice distinction matters, I will not attempt to convince you.

[Guest pelmetman]

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 3:44 PM

 

pelmetman - 2020-06-04 2:49 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 2:38 PM

 

Well it seems there is little doubt now that Cummings little Jolly and rule breaking has influenced many, especially the young to flout the rules.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/06/03/one-five-have-started-breaking-lockdown-rules-more

 

Polls are usually a few percent either way in the accuracy but even if it was way off the mark and only 1% were breaking the rules because of Cummings then its 1% too many that could be enough to actually lead to the deaths of innocent law abiding people.

 

So 32% of the 21% that weren't ars*d about following the rules....... blame Cummings for their lack of moral compass *-) .........

 

How very Loony Liberal Loser Brigade >:-) .........

 

 

That depends how you interpret the results but its pretty shocking that 1 in 5 are now flouting the rules. As I said even if just 1% of them have done so because of Cummings (and its clearly way more than that) its enough IMO to make his position untenable and yes before anyone starts, that goes for the rest of them as well, Labour or Tories. The Difference is the Cummings debacle was huge, he is one of the people in power setting the rules, writing the slogans and telling our confused and bewildered PM what to do. Nothing to do with Loony Liberals or "Losers" either. The vast majority of Tory, Liberal and Labour voters agree.

 

1 in 5??? 8-) .........

 

I fear your Old mans education was wasted on you :D ........

 

If you think 32% of the 21% of those who responded to a survey means 1 in 5 of the UK population are flouting the rules (lol) (lol) (lol) ........

 

 

[Bulletguy]

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 2:38 PM

 

Well it seems there is little doubt now that Cummings little Jolly and rule breaking has influenced many, especially the young to flout the rules.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/06/03/one-five-have-started-breaking-lockdown-rules-more

 

Polls are usually a few percent either way in the accuracy but even if it was way off the mark and only 1% were breaking the rules because of Cummings then its 1% too many that could be enough to actually lead to the deaths of innocent law abiding people.

The quoted one in five now following lockdown rules less strictly is 21%. :-(

[John52]

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 10:23 AM

 

John52 - 2020-06-04 8:49 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-03 11:00 PM

 

John52 - 2020-06-03 3:13 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-03 9:53 AM

 

 

It seems even our resident lock down rule breaker and illegal wild camper has been there to have a look.

 

 

Rule breaker perhaps - depends whose rules. Councils and police forces seem to have been making up their own to suit the local nimbys they represent.

But, as far as I know, I haven't broken any laws.

People who accuse me of law breaking have yet to say exactly what law I have broken.

 

The Police are issuing £100 Covid fines for anyone staying overnight in a Camper van because its currently against the law. Even full timers without a home to go to are facing issues and getting fined. You have a home, you broke the law and continue to do so. Its as simple as that, end of.

 

for the umpteenth time - against what law?

One of the disasters the powers that be have created is issuing guidance without putting it into law.

I don't know whether this is through incompetence, or deliberate to set the plebs fighting amongst themselves - divide and rule - to take our attention away from their own ignoring the law.

The police are issuing Covid fines that are unenforceable because,

 

like you, they still can't point out what law its against.

 

Apparently D&C police were telling people they couldn't drive to take exercise, then had to back down when someone pointed out there was no law against it. Certainly their notices I saw on Hayle Millennium walk car park were removed. (and not by me)

 

Here you go. These were in force while you were touring in your van.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

 

I may have missed it but please point out to me where in the list of exemptions for leaving your home it states motorhoming and staying overnight on holiday is one of them?

 

Perhaps you will find it in the rest of the legislation although somehow I doubt it.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made

 

Of course its been relaxed somewhat now but still I see no mention of staying overnight in your camper van being allowed unless you are an essential worker or its your only home.

 

From 1 June, anyone in England can be outside without needing a reasonable excuse. If someone wants to take a long car journey, they no longer need to explain themselves - providing they're returning home that day.

 

For the first time since the lockdown began, people in England can stay overnight away from home for a range of specific reasons that include:

 

Attending a funeral

For reasonably necessary work

To provide care, or to avoid injury or harm.

 

So it seems you were breaking the law and till are even under the relaxed rules.

 

I hadn't left my (motor) home as I had been in it since the lockdown started - like the lads in the motorhome in St Ives https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Police-called-to-Motorhome/55244/ The fact I own a house somewhere else is irrelevant, we were told to stay in the home we were in.

[John52]

Oh and you can drive anywhere in England for exercise. There are countless unexpected legitimate reasons why you may not be able to drive back same day.

[StuartO]

John52 - 2020-06-04 5:07 PM

 

Oh and you can drive anywhere in England for exercise. There are countless unexpected legitimate reasons why you may not be able to drive back same day.

 

If you want to cheat, there'll always be a way, eh?

 

I do hope you get your collar felt soon.

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2020-06-04 4:54 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 2:38 PM

 

Well it seems there is little doubt now that Cummings little Jolly and rule breaking has influenced many, especially the young to flout the rules.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/06/03/one-five-have-started-breaking-lockdown-rules-more

 

Polls are usually a few percent either way in the accuracy but even if it was way off the mark and only 1% were breaking the rules because of Cummings then its 1% too many that could be enough to actually lead to the deaths of innocent law abiding people.

The quoted one in five now following lockdown rules less strictly is 21%. :-(

 

Damn me Dumb Dumb are you really using the same Diane Abbotcus as Barry? (lol) (lol) (lol) .......

 

I must get one of those ;-) ........

 

As they make any sh*te add up :D ........

 

 

[John52]

Barryd999 - 2020-06-03 10:57 PM

they can Brexit themselves over a fecking cliff for all I care, .

 

Problem is its others they are Brexiting over a fecking cliff, they will have made provision for themselves >:-)

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2020-06-04 3:47 PM

 

Well Brian, knowing as I do from your postings of the last few weeks, that you are never wrong in your own eyes and you will argue endlessly that some nice distinction matters, I will not attempt to convince you.

 

Stuart you are a clever man and I like to read what you write whether or not I agree with your views. Are you any less convinced of the strength of your arguments than Brian or anyone else on here for that matter?

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2020-06-04 12:41 PM

John is simply using the "Cummings defence" of "I know doing what I want is outside the spirit of the law, but it isn't actually illegal so I'll do it anyway".

But what Cummings did was illegal. His car was not his home.

[John52]

StuartO - 2020-06-04 12:57 PM

 

Comparing DC to our resident idiot John52 is a grossly unfair act

 

Actually you are right there 8-)

because what DC did was illegal. - and incredibly dangerous to drive with possibly defective his eyesight >:-)

Wheras what I am dong is legal and safe :-D

[Barryd999]

pelmetman - 2020-06-04 3:59 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 3:44 PM

 

pelmetman - 2020-06-04 2:49 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2020-06-04 2:38 PM

 

Well it seems there is little doubt now that Cummings little Jolly and rule breaking has influenced many, especially the young to flout the rules.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/06/03/one-five-have-started-breaking-lockdown-rules-more

 

Polls are usually a few percent either way in the accuracy but even if it was way off the mark and only 1% were breaking the rules because of Cummings then its 1% too many that could be enough to actually lead to the deaths of innocent law abiding people.

 

So 32% of the 21% that weren't ars*d about following the rules....... blame Cummings for their lack of moral compass *-) .........

 

How very Loony Liberal Loser Brigade >:-) .........

 

 

That depends how you interpret the results but its pretty shocking that 1 in 5 are now flouting the rules. As I said even if just 1% of them have done so because of Cummings (and its clearly way more than that) its enough IMO to make his position untenable and yes before anyone starts, that goes for the rest of them as well, Labour or Tories. The Difference is the Cummings debacle was huge, he is one of the people in power setting the rules, writing the slogans and telling our confused and bewildered PM what to do. Nothing to do with Loony Liberals or "Losers" either. The vast majority of Tory, Liberal and Labour voters agree.

 

1 in 5??? 8-) .........

 

I fear your Old mans education was wasted on you :D ........

 

If you think 32% of the 21% of those who responded to a survey means 1 in 5 of the UK population are flouting the rules (lol) (lol) (lol) ........

 

 

Does it or does it not say 1 in 5 are flouting the rules since the Dominic Cummings scandal? I think you will find it does. It does say only 7% of those cited Cummings as a reason but that was not one of the questions, they volunteered that information. Who knows what the rest of them thought but the fact remains there has been an increase in Lock Down rule breaking behaviour particularly with young people since cummings decided to do his thing. As I said if only 1% (and its way more than that clearly) have used him as an excuse to do what they like his position is untenable.

 

I saw some of the photos of the team of Volunteers who have been out clearing up their s**te today. They filled a van up full of it. These are vital key volunteers who are normally out helping people across a massive remote region through this crisis. Now they are having to deal with this. Dont tell me this has nothing to do with Cummings and the governments ridiculous do WTF you like lock down rules. If I had my way I would congregate them all including Cummings and Johnson at the top of High Force and bulldoze the lot of them over the edge.