The Dominic Cummings file

[elbows]

Even if you take the most charitable interpretation possible (and I wouldn't), that's really going to apply to the early stages isn't it. It doesn't even begin to explain why he was still making the exact same fuckups nine months later.

Exactly. There was broader establishment failure the first time, later on the blame becomes more about Johnson than other layers of the establishment.

 

[steveo87]

A liar gets called out for lying, then lies to protect a lie.

 

[elbows]

A liar gets called out for lying, then lies to protect a lie.

Monitored in near realtime using lieteral flow testing and sewage surveillance.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

The 'Captain Hindsight' label is a catchy soundbite that, like all the best soundbites, summarises a lot in an easily memorable phrase.

It's used by Johnson to support the idea that last year he was faced with an unprecedented crisis, did his best in difficult circumstances and no one else could've done any better. Any criticism of what he did or didn't do is just hindsight from grumblers and moaners. That's likely to be his defence going into next year's Covid enquiry, so he wants the idea well established in the public mind before then.

It is, of course, a lie. At every step of the way there's been people shouting at him what he should be doing, whilst he ignored them all, blundering on, focused on the economy, leaving a trail of tens of thousands dead in his wake.

Indeed, and that's what makes the Cummings testimony so important in the development of a counter narrative. Cummings has directly engaged with the argument that Johnson and his friends have constructed about 'plucky Boris' doing the best he could in the circumstances. His evidence reveals both incompetence and complacency in respect of track and trace, PPE, lockdowns, border control and over the care provided to the most vulnerable (those in care homes). It directly engages with the constructed narrative of Johnson and demolishes it. Cummings account, and the forthcoming release of emails, messages and What's App groups, is public and ticking away....

 

[two sheds]

I presume I'm ok linking direct to reddit? Sorry that it is on autoplay, just click it to stop I think, and I hope this works, but

 

[elbows]

TBF. Number of radioactive spider related incidents under this administration. Nil.

Dont fall for their web of deceit on this, cases are only nil because the radioactive spider testing system lacked capacity.

 

[elbows]

I've only dipped in and out of this, but weren't we expecting more killer evidence from cummings - tapes, texts etc? He has submitted some docs to the committee I think, but it's all a bit short on smoking guns. Either leaving it in reserve or he's a bullshitter.

Given that his criticisms of Hancock and that the care home non-testing scandal has been the focus of much subsequent press attention, I note this Peston article:

PM’s office summoned Hancock last May to explain care homes 'negligence' | ITV News

Cummings says Hancock made an unconditional promise not to send potentially infected patients into care homes. | ITV National News

www.itv.com

The health secretary Matt Hancock today insisted he promised the prime minister and his former chief aide Dominic Cummings only that all elderly and vulnerable patients would be tested for Covid on discharge to a care home when there was adequate testing capacity, and not with immediate effect.

This is Hancock’s defence to Cummings’s charge that he lied to him and the PM when promising to test patients prior to them going to a care home.

But I understand Cummings has documentary evidence that as late as May last year he and the PM feared they had been misled by Hancock about how he would protect the elderly in care homes, and that he was guilty of “negligence”.

The problem for Hancock is - I understand - that Dominic Cummings has documents showing Matt Hancock was summoned by the prime minister’s office to 10 Downing Street on 3 May, for a meeting on 4 May, to explain whether he had misled Cummings, the PM and the then cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill on testing patients before discharge into care homes and also about further testing of residents and staff in care homes.

A source says there was a fear in Downing Street that Mr Hancock’s “negligence” had “killed people in care homes” (a charge which the Department of Health has denied). The term “negligence” is used in the documents. Downing Street officials asked for information from the Department of Health to understand what had gone wrong.

 

[ska invita]

i think i misunderstood - the Covid Bereaved Families are taking the government to court, but only with the aim to force the government to start an inquiry immediately, as opposed to trying to sue/press charges against anyone. Unless anyone knows otherwise?

 

[muscovyduck]

Cummings clearly had enough info to whistleblow when he could have saved many many lives. But he didn't because he wanted this pantomine big reveal. Fuck him

 

[killer b]

Has anyone posted the yougov polling on this? The usual split - funny to see Labour voters supporting Dominic Cummings though huh.

Dominic Cummings: What do Britons make of his accusations against the government? | YouGov

The former special advisor has given explosive evidence to MPs over the governments handling of the pandemic

yougov.co.uk

 

[Favelado]

The Sun are basically calling Cummings Captain Hindsight... Effective line, proven

Private Eye have gone with something similar on the front page.

 

[teqniq]

In the wake of Cumming's revelations Hancock is put on the spot and all he manages to do is look and sound proper shifty:

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Has anyone posted the yougov polling on this? The usual split - funny to see Labour voters supporting Dominic Cummings though huh.

yes

i'm not convinced this is a good guy / bad guy situation, just two massive twunts

 

[two sheds]

Yep, and cunt #1 needs to detail exactly what cunt #2 said that were lies.

 

[stavros]

yes

i'm not convinced this is a good guy / bad guy situation, just two massive twunts

It is perfectly possible for two people taking opposing lines on something to both be talking bollocks.

 

[MickiQ]

Yep, and cunt #1 needs to detail exactly what cunt #2 said that were lies.

All of it

 

[prunus]

It is perfectly possible for two people taking opposing lines on something to both be talking bollocks.

Indeed so - see for instance pretty much every religious disagreement since the beginning of time.

 

[elbows]

Ah yes I think we only have a few more days to wait before Hancock goes before that same committee (this coming Thursday?).

I think I also read that Cummings missed the deadline for submitting evidence to back his claims, but maybe he has gotten round to it since I read that. I'm not convinced hes got much in the way of that sort of evidence, but there should still be something, however meagre.

 

[elbows]

Yeah shit all evidence submitted by the sounds of it.

Cummings fails to provide evidence to back up dishonesty claim

Former aide to Boris Johnson had promised to give documents to Commons committee

www.theguardian.com

 

[maomao]

Yeah shit all evidence submitted by the sounds of it.

Cummings fails to provide evidence to back up dishonesty claim

Former aide to Boris Johnson had promised to give documents to Commons committee

www.theguardian.com

What did anyone expect. Cummings is an obvious bullshitter with a grudge. And clever enough to know that everyone who hates the government would back him if he slagged them off. I'm sure lots of it was true but it wasn't court level evidence.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

That's Handjob off the hook then.

 

[existentialist]

That's Handjob off the hook then.

And, worse, vindicated. At least as far as he's concerned. Bring on the smugness and hubris.

 

[Pickman's model]

And, worse, vindicated. At least as far as he's concerned. Bring on the smugness and hubris.

Sadly nemesis is self-isolating atm

 

[two sheds]

All we can look forward to is that cunt #2 sues cunt #1 for slander :hopeful smiley:

 

[Pickman's model]

All we can look forward to is that cunt #2 sues cunt #1 for slander :hopeful smiley:

Libel probably more likely

 

[tim]

Libel probably more likely

Why can't they have a duel try and kill each other like senior members of the Government who disagreed in the early nineteenth century did. It's a bit more honourable than verbal snipping in select committees

 

[two sheds]

Libel probably more likely

Would be more entertaining. Did he write the accusations down too?

 

[Pickman's model]

Would be more entertaining. Did he write the accusations down too?

More likely than slander. I'd suspect any case would fail as evidence to parliament likely privileged

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

More likely than slander. I'd suspect any case would fail as evidence to parliament likely privileged

I believe it is only what is said in the chamber that is protected by parliamentary privilege and that what is said in committee can form the basis of a prosecution. I think.

 

[Pickman's model]

I believe it is only what is said in the chamber that is protected by parliamentary privilege and that what is said in committee can form the basis of a prosecution. I think.

Hancock's fucked then if DC has something tucked away