Lala
Well-known member
It’s called venting and it’s therapeutic.If you are not happy, then get in touch with your MP. No point just posting on here.
It’s called venting and it’s therapeutic.If you are not happy, then get in touch with your MP. No point just posting on here.
Taking a four year old from London to Durham must involve a stop en route. It's just not plausible to say otherwise.I’m livid after watching that.
Two adults who considered that they were both carriers of the virus chose to travel. And long distances and therefore making contact along the journey were all likely. At every touch point there was the chance it would be transferred.
And knowing they were ill, they took the chance that it might develop into a serious condition. Which would have required contact with frontline health care staff and taking up beds in an area that was not yet geared up to cope with peak exposure.
It’s appalling that he’s been defended.
Unelected yes, appointed by Boris, yes, but still subject to the Civil Service code. If he's found to have misled the PM and the rest of us, it would be deemed to be gross misconduct and a sackable offence.I agree, Lala, this goes beyond anything I can remember, I am seriously upset. You all know my political views, but have always taken being on the wrong side on the chin, fair does. But this is an affront to voting. An unelected advisor can do what he likes, and potentially bring down a PM?? WTF
Cheers, didn't know thatUnelected yes, appointed by Boris, yes, but still subject to the Civil Service code. If he's found to have misled the PM and the rest of us, it would be deemed to be gross misconduct and a sackable offence.
The kid might have pissed in a bottle I suppose.Taking a four year old from London to Durham must involve a stop en route. It's just not plausible to say otherwise.
Unfortunately Wiz we probably both know the hierarchy have a tendency to close ranks and brush this kind of stuff under the carpet using underhand means. Have seen it at the lower echelons and no doubt will see it again here.Unelected yes, appointed by Boris, yes, but still subject to the Civil Service code. If he's found to have misled the PM and the rest of us, it would be deemed to be gross misconduct and a sackable offence.
We are all confused, apparently.That was the most embarrassing lying performance l have ever seen in my lifetime! It was upsetting for all those people who have lost their loved ones not even being able to see them take their last breaths at distance, or being able to bury them as a family with dignity. If the leader of the country can't back the public over a single individual who has without doubt broken the guidelines that millions of people have adhered to, what chance do we have in beating this enemy?
Forgot to mention it wouldn't be Boris' decision either.Unelected yes, appointed by Boris, yes, but still subject to the Civil Service code. If he's found to have misled the PM and the rest of us, it would be deemed to be gross misconduct and a sackable offence.
Back in April that exact question was raised and it was categorical that the child had to stay with the one parent. It's been relaxed since.Can I put the cat amongst the pigeons and say, people do this all the time. The ones that have children in shared households. Not all parents live in close proximity to each other when divorced or separated. Some will have had to take a child back to estranged parent when feeling ill because of unreasonable ex spouse or court order. It's not quite the same, but do the rules apply to them as well.
Unfortunately my MP is Ben Wallace, BJ's campaign manager at his previous attempt to become Tory leader. I don't think I'll bother wasting my time!If you are not happy, then get in touch with your MP. No point just posting on here.
Mine is Andrea Jenkyns who was the first to put in a letter of no confidence in Theresa. More right wing than Rees Mogg.Unfortunately my MP is Ben Wallace, BJ's campaign manager at his previous attempt to become Tory leader. I don't think I'll bother wasting my time!
It’s not the same at all. Which is the very point.Can I put the cat amongst the pigeons and say, people do this all the time. The ones that have children in shared households. Not all parents live in close proximity to each other when divorced or separated. Some will have had to take a child back to estranged parent when feeling ill because of unreasonable ex spouse or court order. It's not quite the same, but do the rules apply to them as well.
Well I personally know people who have refused all the way through to follow it. Children moved from one town back to another in order to see both parents a week at a time. Nobody batted an eye lid.Back in April that exact question was raised and it was categorical that the child had to stay with the one parent. It's been relaxed since.
I think it is. Children/child being moved across the country.It’s not the same at all. Which is the very point.
Can I put the cat amongst the pigeons and say, people do this all the time. The ones that have children in shared households. Not all parents live in close proximity to each other when divorced or separated. Some will have had to take a child back to estranged parent when feeling ill because of unreasonable ex spouse or court order. It's not quite the same, but do the rules apply to them as well.
Nope. Totally different. This was against all the guidelines, absent parents seeing their children wasn’t.I think it is. Children/child being moved across the country.
That fitted the guidelines. This child stayed with his 2 parents throughout in a second home 260 miles away whilst the father flitted around willy nilly.Well I personally know people who have refused all the way through to follow it. Children moved from one town back to another in order to see both parents a week at a time. Nobody batted an eye lid.
Well what's the difference are absent parents immune from catching the virus.Nope. Totally different. This was against all the guidelines, absent parents seeing their children wasn’t.
Guidance we were ruled by is the difference. And more, I could digress s but no point really .Well what's the difference are absent parents immune from catching the virus.
Well what's the difference are absent parents immune from catching the virus.
Guidance we were ruled by is the difference. And more, I could digress s but no point really .
I think that was Johnson's Ratner moment
You can't stand up and basically lie to the British public on National TV and get away with it
Tomorrow's story - 'Dominic Cummings wazzed a bottle of piss at me from the window of his car says nurse waiting for bus to go for 14 hour A+E shift'The kid might have pissed in a bottle I suppose.
Were either of the parents or the child displaying symptoms of the virus when they did this?Well I personally know people who have refused all the way through to follow it. Children moved from one town back to another in order to see both parents a week at a time. Nobody batted an eye lid.
Is he subject to Civil Service rules? I thought he was a political advisor.Forgot to mention it wouldn't be Boris' decision either.
He's subject to the rules as a SPAD.Is he subject to Civil Service rules? I thought he was a political advisor.
Matt 'your sister's first boyfriend with a car' Hancock - Charlie BrookerI think there is going to be a massive backlash. It seems a lot of Tory MP's are disgusted. Oh apart from Gove and little narky terrier butt licker Hancock.
He's well on the way. Stories about Barnard Castle are 'palpably false'. Seems very sure of it despite this evening's claim that a car owned by Cummings was indeed at the castle on the day in question.He's not quite there yet, he didn't spit his dummy, tell them they are all fake news and walk out of the briefing.
May happen this week though if the media don't let it go!