Discussion:
What Cummings should have done
Add Reply
RH156RH
2020-05-26 12:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Cummings should have done this:

1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and ignore the rule.

2. Every time he was asked a question about how he justified his behaviour he should have simply referred the questioner to the special circumstances passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would soon have lost interest.

3. Offered to resign if

a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired from their job for not observing the social distancing rules and not reemployed in the media.

b) Offered to resign if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks the rules is forced to resign.

Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard Castle was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error of someone trying to plug a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger hole.

However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip would have been put on the back burner as the politicians and the media ran away from attacking him when their own position was threatened. If he had to give an explanation for the Barnard Castle trip he should have said his car was playing up on his drive to the NE - s a knocking noise would do the trick - and he wanted to make see how the car was running before the 260 mile drive home.

RH
Pamela
2020-05-26 13:02:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people
with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and
ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question raised
at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries said:

"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child,
that is an exceptional circumstance."

Then she spoilt it for Dominic by adding:

"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal
care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their
local authority hubs."
Post by RH156RH
2. Every time he was asked a question about how he justified his
behaviour he should have simply referred the questioner to the
special circumstances passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would
soon have lost interest.
3. Offered to resign if
a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired
from their job for not observing the social distancing rules and not
reemployed in the media.
That is clutching at straws. One or two minutes of non-contact proximity
between key workers, such as journalists, going about their job is hardly
a firing offence.
Post by RH156RH
b) Offered to resign if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks
the rules is forced to resign.
Cummings broke Parliamentary rules by refusing to attend a select
committee and was found in contempt. Should he resign?
Post by RH156RH
Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard
Castle was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error of someone
trying to plug a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger
hole.
However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip would
have been put on the back burner as the politicians and the media ran
away from attacking him when their own position was threatened. If he
had to give an explanation for the Barnard Castle trip he should have
said his car was playing up on his drive to the NE - s a knocking
noise would do the trick - and he wanted to make see how the car was
running before the 260 mile drive home.
RH
RH156RH
2020-05-26 14:07:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people
with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and
ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question raised
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child,
that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal
care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their
local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
2. Every time he was asked a question about how he justified his
behaviour he should have simply referred the questioner to the
special circumstances passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would
soon have lost interest.
3. Offered to resign if
a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired
from their job for not observing the social distancing rules and not
reemployed in the media.
That is clutching at straws. One or two minutes of non-contact proximity
between key workers, such as journalists, going about their job is hardly
a firing offence.
Putting the wrecking ball back into your oponent's court works wonders in the type of situations. RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
b) Offered to resign if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks
the rules is forced to resign.
Cummings broke Parliamentary rules by refusing to attend a select
committee and was found in contempt. Should he resign?
Post by RH156RH
Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard
Castle was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error of someone
trying to plug a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger
hole.
However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip would
have been put on the back burner as the politicians and the media ran
away from attacking him when their own position was threatened. If he
had to give an explanation for the Barnard Castle trip he should have
said his car was playing up on his drive to the NE - s a knocking
noise would do the trick - and he wanted to make see how the car was
running before the 260 mile drive home.
RH
Pamela
2020-05-26 14:21:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people
with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and
ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small
child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal
care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their
local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior rule
is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the child is
autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting the child to
grandparents or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category and
what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it just an
uncorrorated rumour?

Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit
take his son away from school?
abelard
2020-05-26 14:27:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people
with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and
ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small
child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal
care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their
local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior rule
is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the child is
autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting the child to
grandparents or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category and
what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it just an
uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit
take his son away from school?
no content as usual
--
www.abelard.org
RH156RH
2020-05-26 14:27:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people
with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and
ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small
child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal
care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their
local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior rule
is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the child is
autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting the child to
grandparents or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category and
what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it just an
uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit
take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Pamela
2020-05-26 14:37:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small
child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior
rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the
child is autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting
the child to grandparents or other members of a family to child knew
it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham
visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of hand.
Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.

Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the extra
resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs" to now cover
a socking 11.9% of the school population in England. However far fewer at
3% have an education plan for their disability.

Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then why
wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
abelard
2020-05-26 18:00:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small
child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior
rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the
child is autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting
the child to grandparents or other members of a family to child knew
it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham
visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of hand.
Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
schools get extra money....parent get extra attention

so middle class parents fight for it...it's bollox as is most usage
of the word 'autistic'

uneducated parents are far too diffident or ignorant
Post by Pamela
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the extra
resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs" to now cover
a socking 11.9% of the school population in England. However far fewer at
3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then why
wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
--
www.abelard.org
RH156RH
2020-05-26 18:20:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small
child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior
rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the
child is autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting
the child to grandparents or other members of a family to child knew
it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham
visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of hand.
Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the extra
resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs" to now cover
a socking 11.9% of the school population in England. However far fewer at
3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then why
wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
Pamela
2020-05-26 18:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs" to
now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England. However
far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
RH156RH
2020-05-26 18:46:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs" to
now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England. However
far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
No, I mean those who would be looking after the boy (who is only 4 remember) full time and is not used to strangers. That would be reason enough for a parent to say no. If the lad is autistic that applies with knobs on. RH
Keema's Nan
2020-05-26 19:10:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs" to
now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England. However
far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
No, I mean those who would be looking after the boy (who is only 4 remember)
full time and is not used to strangers. That would be reason enough for a
parent to say no. If the lad is autistic that applies with knobs on. RH
I wonder how many of these sycophants who are arguing about the priorities of
needing to look after a 4-year old, were the same ones who slagged off anyone
who criticised the idea that parents could be getting pissed in a bar while
their kids were in bed over 100 yards away?
Pamela
2020-05-26 21:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support
- formal care support - or to family, they will be able to
work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs"
to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England.
However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
No, I mean those who would be looking after the boy (who is only 4
remember) full time and is not used to strangers. That would be reason
enough for a parent to say no. If the lad is autistic that applies
with knobs on. RH
Presumably he gets on well enough with his nursery teachers and they were
strangers when he first met them.
MM
2020-05-31 11:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
No, I mean those who would be looking after the boy (who is only 4 remember) full time and is not used to strangers. That would be reason enough for a parent to say no. If the lad is autistic that applies with knobs on. RH
There will be hundreds of thousands of parents with a 4-year-old child
who made the correct decision to Stay Home and follow official
guidance which Dominic Cummings in parf helped to set up.

And if the child IS autistic, all the more reason to use professional
carers from the Community Hub instead of relying on a 17-year-old
niece.

MM
JNugent
2020-05-31 13:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by RH156RH
No, I mean those who would be looking after the boy (who is only 4 remember) full time and is not used to strangers. That would be reason enough for a parent to say no. If the lad is autistic that applies with knobs on. RH
There will be hundreds of thousands of parents with a 4-year-old child
who made the correct decision to Stay Home and follow official
guidance which Dominic Cummings in parf helped to set up.
And if the child IS autistic, all the more reason to use professional
carers from the Community Hub instead of relying on a 17-year-old
niece.
MM
You don't know about the "traditions" of Islington Social Services, then?
Pamela
2020-05-31 15:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
No, I mean  those who would be looking after  the boy  (who is only
4  remember)  full time and is not used to strangers. That would be
reason enough for  a parent to say no. If the lad is  autistic that
applies with knobs on. RH
There will be hundreds of thousands of parents with a 4-year-old child
who made the correct decision to Stay Home and follow official
guidance which Dominic Cummings in parf helped to set up.
And if the child IS autistic, all the more reason to use professional
carers from the Community Hub instead of relying on a 17-year-old
niece.
MM
You don't know about the "traditions" of Islington Social Services, then?
MM does not have any children.


Islington North Jeremy Corbyn

Islington South Emily Thornberry.


Says it all.

--
Pamela
2020-05-31 15:12:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
No, I mean  those who would be looking after  the boy  (who is
only 4  remember)  full time and is not used to strangers. That
would be reason enough for  a parent to say no. If the lad is 
autistic that applies with knobs on. RH
There will be hundreds of thousands of parents with a 4-year-old child
who made the correct decision to Stay Home and follow official
guidance which Dominic Cummings in parf helped to set up.
And if the child IS autistic, all the more reason to use professional
carers from the Community Hub instead of relying on a 17-year-old
niece.
MM
You don't know about the "traditions" of Islington Social Services, then?
MM does not have any children.
Islington North Jeremy Corbyn
Islington South Emily Thornberry.
Says it all.
It's hardly a revelation that Islington is left leaning. Even the real
Pamela, me, knows Islington hasn't been Tory for nearly a century.
JNugent
2020-05-27 01:41:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs" to
now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England. However
far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Keema's Nan
2020-05-27 07:32:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs" to
now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England. However
far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Yes, reception class.

Jeez, you are really thick.
Pamela
2020-05-27 08:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such condition?
Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's
problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs"
to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England.
However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
RH156RH
2020-05-27 09:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such condition?
Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's
problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs"
to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England.
However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
Pamela
2020-05-27 09:17:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support
- formal care support - or to family, they will be able to
work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."

https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html

The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
Roger
2020-05-27 09:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support
- formal care support - or to family, they will be able to
work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with
strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made widely known and is the target of protesters.

He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
Pamela
2020-05-27 09:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could
use their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look
after a small child, that is an exceptional
circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they will
be able to work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because
the prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents
or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been
granted special status at school and with the local
authority. During Covid, schools should be open to permit
only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son
away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting
out of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are
scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents
like the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged
"special needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school
population in England. However far fewer at 3% have an
education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special
needs then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the
local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child
with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised
about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made
widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from tv
reports!
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he
attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19
outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
Roger
2020-05-27 10:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could
use their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look
after a small child, that is an exceptional
circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they will
be able to work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because
the prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents
or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been
granted special status at school and with the local
authority. During Covid, schools should be open to permit
only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son
away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting
out of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are
scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents
like the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged
"special needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school
population in England. However far fewer at 3% have an
education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special
needs then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the
local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child
with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised
about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made
widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from tv
reports!
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he
attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19
outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
Therefore it must be true according to the populist logic of guilty as accused until proved innocent by a jury of unicorns.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-27 10:35:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could
use their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look
after a small child, that is an exceptional
circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they will
be able to work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because
the prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents
or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been
granted special status at school and with the local
authority. During Covid, schools should be open to permit
only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son
away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting
out of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are
scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents
like the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged
"special needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school
population in England. However far fewer at 3% have an
education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special
needs then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the
local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child
with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised
about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made
widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from tv
reports!
Yes, and didn’t Cummings walk on a very roundabout route to his home?
That was the day he was confronted by a bunch of rent-a-mobs shouting abuse.
How did they know he was going to take the 'scenic route’ to his house,
unless he tipped them off in advance?

How simple is it to arrange a group of your own acquaintances to jump about
in front of you, somewhere around a corner away from anyone who might
recognise them, and then use that excuse to control the official media?
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he
attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19
outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
The ‘false’ claims were spread due his saying just that (herd immunity)
at a meeting in February. When Robert Peston subsequently appeared on ITV
with those same ‘false’ quotations, which he also repeated in the
Spectator in March, no one from the government jumped up to take legal
action. For the government to deny it ever happened is just another in their
verbal diarrhoea of lies coming from Downing Street.

Peston was briefed by someone high up in government because he doesn’t get
his info from the tea-lady, and this is Peston's article -

"The key phrase we all need to understand is 'herd immunity' – which is
what happens to a group of people or animals when they develop sufficient
antibodies to be resistant to a disease.

The strategy of the British government in minimising the impact of Covid-19
(https://www.itv.com/news/topic/coronavirus/) is to allow the virus to pass
through the entire population so that we acquire herd immunity, but at a much
delayed speed so that those who suffer the most acute symptoms are able to
receive the medical support they need, and such that the health service is
not overwhelmed and crushed by the sheer number of cases it has to treat at
any one time.

The government’s experts – the chief medical officer and the chief
scientific advisor – have made two big judgements.

First, as the World Health Organisation on Wednesday in effect conceded
(https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-11/coronavirus-outbreak-labelled-pandemic-
world-health-organisation/), that there is no way now of preventing the virus
sweeping across Africa, Asia and the Americas – which in practice means
that it will be an ever-present threat to the UK, unless and until a mass
vaccine is available for use.

Second, the kind of coercive measures employed by China in Wuhan and Hubei
have simply locked the virus behind the closed doors of people’s homes.

And just as soon as the constraints on freedom of movement are lifted there,
the monstrous virus will rear its hideous face again.

What are the consequences for the UK of these judgements, which the Prime
Minister and Health Secretary are accepting?

We will know the detail later on Thursday, after the Cobra meeting of
ministers and experts make the formal decision to move from the phase of
containing the virus to delaying the inevitable epidemic
(https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-11/cobra-to-decide-on-moving-to-delay-phase-
amid-coronavirus-outbreak/).

But we already know that at the heart of their plans are increasing the
proportion of the population able to be tested and also what’s known as
'social distancing'.

In the first instance, this will mean encouraging anyone showing even the
mild symptoms – such as a dry cough – to self-isolate at home.

But what it does not mean, at least yet, is school closures or the banning of
mass events like football matches.

There are a few reasons why school closures are not regarded as sensible, not
least that children themselves are the least at risk from the virus –
although they may well be an important channel of infection-transmission to
older people who are at risk.

However, the government’s main argument against closing schools is it would
– at a stroke – massively deplete the manpower of hospitals and care
homes, because vast numbers of medical staff would be forced to stay home to
look after their children.

And at the heart of the UK’s challenge – as confirmed on Wednesday in the
Budget with its extra £5 billion for the NHS
(https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-11/chancellor-rishi-sunak-delivers-budget-
amid-coronavirus-covid-19-pressure-and-focuses-on-flooding-spending-
potholes/), as a down payment on the needed extra beds and relevant kit –
is how to make sure hospitals have the resources to treat the expected surge
in those needing urgent attention.

For what it’s worth, ministers are looking with grim bemusement at the
debate in football’s governing bodies about banning the public from stadia.

They fear this fuels alarmism and do not think playing matches behind closed
doors is necessary at this stage.

Far more sensible, they believe, is for all of us to become much more wary
about physical contact with everyone in our day-to-day lives – whether
travelling to work, at work, or at the shops.

And many more of us should take the opportunity to work at home, perhaps all
the time, if we possibly can.

To get through this, we all need to become less tactile, more cautious in our
physical contact.

Subscribe today for unlimited access.

Try a month free. Cancel any time.

And, as the WHO’s Margaret Harris said on my show last night, these social
and cultural changes may have to become permanent.

Robert Peston is ITV's Political Editor. This article originally appeared on
his ITV news blog (https://www.itv.com/news/meet-the-team/robert-peston/).

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-vital-to-stopping-
coronavirus

(Paywall, but you may get a free article or two)
Pamela
2020-05-27 10:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three
and five."
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered
and unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for
anyone looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings
raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been
made widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from
tv reports!
Yes, and didn't Cummings walk on a very roundabout route to his home?
That was the day he was confronted by a bunch of rent-a-mobs shouting
abuse. How did they know he was going to take the 'scenic route’ to
his house, unless he tipped them off in advance?
How simple is it to arrange a group of your own acquaintances to jump
about in front of you, somewhere around a corner away from anyone who
might recognise them, and then use that excuse to control the official
media?
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that
he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the
Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
The false claims were spread due his saying just that (herd
immunity) at a meeting in February. When Robert Peston subsequently
appeared on ITV with those same false quotations, which he also
repeated in the Spectator in March, no one from the government jumped up
to take legal action. For the government to deny it ever happened is
just another in their verbal diarrhoea of lies coming from Downing
Street.
Peston was briefed by someone high up in government because he doesn't
get his info from the tea-lady, and this is Peston's article -
SNIP TEXT
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-vital-to-
stopping-coronavirus
The very idea of acquiring herd immunity and allowing the weak to die is
anathema. I have no idea how any government could ever have come up with
such a policy but ours did. Maybe it was because this government panicked
after taking so long to respond and given poor resources in the NHS.

The implications of herd immunity were never stated explicitly and
publicly by the government (which is why Roger here says he can't find it)
but several leaks shows what politicans were thinking.

Such quasi-genocide is unlikely to be the product of only one person but
DC had an effective veto on what actions Boris would take and DC was an
early enthusiast for herd immunity. It probably follows from DC's
personal interest in mathematical modelling and game theory.

The FT reported some credible leaks that Cummings was okay with herd
immunity deaths.

It all stinks. Roger will now come along with YouTube videos to say he
can't find where the public was informed about the death-policy and so it
never was really policy. His cover as a gov't plant is wearing thin.
Roger
2020-05-27 11:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three
and five."
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered
and unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for
anyone looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings
raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been
made widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from
tv reports!
Yes, and didn't Cummings walk on a very roundabout route to his home?
That was the day he was confronted by a bunch of rent-a-mobs shouting
abuse. How did they know he was going to take the 'scenic route’ to
his house, unless he tipped them off in advance?
How simple is it to arrange a group of your own acquaintances to jump
about in front of you, somewhere around a corner away from anyone who
might recognise them, and then use that excuse to control the official
media?
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that
he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the
Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
The false claims were spread due his saying just that (herd
immunity) at a meeting in February. When Robert Peston subsequently
appeared on ITV with those same false quotations, which he also
repeated in the Spectator in March, no one from the government jumped up
to take legal action. For the government to deny it ever happened is
just another in their verbal diarrhoea of lies coming from Downing
Street.
Peston was briefed by someone high up in government because he doesn't
get his info from the tea-lady, and this is Peston's article -
SNIP TEXT
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-vital-to-
stopping-coronavirus
The very idea of acquiring herd immunity and allowing the weak to die is
anathema. I have no idea how any government could ever have come up with
such a policy but ours did. Maybe it was because this government panicked
after taking so long to respond and given poor resources in the NHS.
The implications of herd immunity were never stated explicitly and
publicly by the government (which is why Roger here says he can't find it)
but several leaks shows what politicans were thinking.
Such quasi-genocide is unlikely to be the product of only one person but
DC had an effective veto on what actions Boris would take and DC was an
early enthusiast for herd immunity. It probably follows from DC's
personal interest in mathematical modelling and game theory.
The FT reported some credible leaks that Cummings was okay with herd
immunity deaths.
It all stinks. Roger will now come along with YouTube videos to say he
can't find where the public was informed about the death-policy and so it
never was really policy. His cover as a gov't plant is wearing thin.
I have in the past pointed out ad nauseum that this has never been presented or enacted on as government policy; it did not appear in the strategy statement prepared at the end of Feburary, it was not the strategy presented by the Chief Scientific Officer on the 12th March. There is no trace of it in parliament or law. It was not the policy that was enacted.

But that has nothing to do with my prior point.

You are ascribing 'Responsibility' to Cummings. Cummings is not in a position to take responsibility. Government Ministers are responsible for decisions made by the government. If they decide he is a more authoritative source than, say, a Chief Scientific Officer, and enshrine his views then that is their responsibility (although there is no sign that this happened). If they delegate decions to him then they must still take responsibility for the decisions he makes.

Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an 'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
Pamela
2020-05-27 11:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
You are ascribing 'Responsibility' to Cummings. Cummings is not in a
position to take responsibility. Government Ministers are responsible
for decisions made by the government. If they decide he is a more
authoritative source than, say, a Chief Scientific Officer, and enshrine
his views then that is their responsibility (although there is no sign
that this happened). If they delegate decions to him then they must
still take responsibility for the decisions he makes.
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an
'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
Pull the other one. Dominic Cummings is employed as "Chief Advisor to the
Prime Minister".

Wikipedia adds:

"political commentators note that Cummings has an unprecedented level
of influence upon the Prime Minister himself and Her Majesty's
Government".

Sorry to burst your agitprop that Cummings is an innocent nobody.
Roger
2020-05-27 11:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
You are ascribing 'Responsibility' to Cummings. Cummings is not in a
position to take responsibility. Government Ministers are responsible
for decisions made by the government. If they decide he is a more
authoritative source than, say, a Chief Scientific Officer, and enshrine
his views then that is their responsibility (although there is no sign
that this happened). If they delegate decions to him then they must
still take responsibility for the decisions he makes.
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an
'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
Pull the other one. Dominic Cummings is employed as "Chief Advisor to the
Prime Minister".
"political commentators note that Cummings has an unprecedented level
of influence upon the Prime Minister himself and Her Majesty's
Government".
Sorry to burst your agitprop that Cummings is an innocent nobody.
I didn't say he's a 'Nobody', I'm saying he is not responsible for the decions the government make. Only ministers are. In the case in point if the PM hires him and acts on his decisions then that is the PM's responsibility.

The only justification for not taking responsibility is for following (appropriate and offical) expert advice, such as SAGE, Chief medical officer, etc.

And the reason I feel it's important to make this distinction is that if people like Cummings are consdered to be responsible then if something murky does come to the surface then Ministers could justify sacking their staff rather than resigning themselves.

Think about it.
Pamela
2020-05-27 12:33:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
You are ascribing 'Responsibility' to Cummings. Cummings is not in a
position to take responsibility. Government Ministers are responsible
for decisions made by the government. If they decide he is a more
authoritative source than, say, a Chief Scientific Officer, and
enshrine his views then that is their responsibility (although there
is no sign that this happened). If they delegate decions to him then
they must still take responsibility for the decisions he makes.
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an
'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
Pull the other one. Dominic Cummings is employed as "Chief Advisor to
the Prime Minister".
"political commentators note that Cummings has an unprecedented level
of influence upon the Prime Minister himself and Her Majesty's
Government".
Sorry to burst your agitprop that Cummings is an innocent nobody.
I didn't say he's a 'Nobody', I'm saying he is not responsible for the
decions the government make. Only ministers are. In the case in point if
the PM hires him and acts on his decisions then that is the PM's
responsibility.
Your distinction between whose head the thought went through first and
whose signature is on the government document is sophistry.

Dominic makes the decisions and Boris carries the can. It's been like
that for a while.

However this time the public have rumbled that DC was behind many Covid
policies they have been following and is angry with him for not following
them himself. It doesn't matter that they didn't elect him, they are
still angry at him.

Your government training manual may say civil servants and those like DC
acting like them must remain invisible, apolitical and are unaccountable
but the public decides for itself who to take issue with. The public
believes Cummings is responsible for the outcome of his influence and they
also see he's responsible for his unnecessary jaunt to his parents.
Post by Roger
The only justification for not taking responsibility is for following
(appropriate and offical) expert advice, such as SAGE, Chief medical
officer, etc.
And the reason I feel it's important to make this distinction is that if
people like Cummings are consdered to be responsible then if something
murky does come to the surface then Ministers could justify sacking
their staff rather than resigning themselves.
MM
2020-05-31 12:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
You are ascribing 'Responsibility' to Cummings. Cummings is not in a
position to take responsibility. Government Ministers are responsible
for decisions made by the government. If they decide he is a more
authoritative source than, say, a Chief Scientific Officer, and enshrine
his views then that is their responsibility (although there is no sign
that this happened). If they delegate decions to him then they must
still take responsibility for the decisions he makes.
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an
'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
Pull the other one. Dominic Cummings is employed as "Chief Advisor to the
Prime Minister".
"political commentators note that Cummings has an unprecedented level
of influence upon the Prime Minister himself and Her Majesty's
Government".
Sorry to burst your agitprop that Cummings is an innocent nobody.
I didn't say he's a 'Nobody', I'm saying he is not responsible for the decions the government make. Only ministers are. In the case in point if the PM hires him and acts on his decisions then that is the PM's responsibility.
So on that basis is it the PM's responsibility to support Cummings'
decision to flout lockdown three times?

MM
Keema's Nan
2020-05-27 12:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three
and five."
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered
and unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for
anyone looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings
raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been
made widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from
tv reports!
Yes, and didn't Cummings walk on a very roundabout route to his home?
That was the day he was confronted by a bunch of rent-a-mobs shouting
abuse. How did they know he was going to take the 'scenic route’ to
his house, unless he tipped them off in advance?
How simple is it to arrange a group of your own acquaintances to jump
about in front of you, somewhere around a corner away from anyone who
might recognise them, and then use that excuse to control the official
media?
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that
he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the
Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
The false claims were spread due his saying just that (herd
immunity) at a meeting in February. When Robert Peston subsequently
appeared on ITV with those same false quotations, which he also
repeated in the Spectator in March, no one from the government jumped up
to take legal action. For the government to deny it ever happened is
just another in their verbal diarrhoea of lies coming from Downing
Street.
Peston was briefed by someone high up in government because he doesn't
get his info from the tea-lady, and this is Peston's article -
SNIP TEXT
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-vital-to-
stopping-coronavirus
The very idea of acquiring herd immunity and allowing the weak to die is
anathema. I have no idea how any government could ever have come up with
such a policy but ours did. Maybe it was because this government panicked
after taking so long to respond and given poor resources in the NHS.
The implications of herd immunity were never stated explicitly and
publicly by the government (which is why Roger here says he can't find it)
but several leaks shows what politicans were thinking.
Such quasi-genocide is unlikely to be the product of only one person but
DC had an effective veto on what actions Boris would take and DC was an
early enthusiast for herd immunity. It probably follows from DC's
personal interest in mathematical modelling and game theory.
The FT reported some credible leaks that Cummings was okay with herd
immunity deaths.
It all stinks. Roger will now come along with YouTube videos to say he
can't find where the public was informed about the death-policy and so it
never was really policy. His cover as a gov't plant is wearing thin.
I have in the past pointed out ad nauseum that this has never been presented
or enacted on as government policy;
Which means nothing.

I have pointed out ad nauseam that Robert Peston does not go on prime time
national news and give a full run down of government thinking without having
been briefed by someone at the top.
Post by Roger
it did not appear in the strategy
statement prepared at the end of Feburary
How very convenient.
Post by Roger
, it was not the strategy presented
by the Chief Scientific Officer on the 12th March.
How very convenient.
Post by Roger
There is no trace of it in
parliament or law. It was not the policy that was enacted.
So, now you are admitting that the British government was implementing policy
by hearsay and private briefings to senior MSM journalists.
Post by Roger
But that has nothing to do with my prior point.
Which was presumably by implication calling Robert Peston a liar and a
fantasist?
Post by Roger
You are ascribing 'Responsibility' to Cummings. Cummings is not in a position
to take responsibility. Government Ministers are responsible for decisions
made by the government. If they decide he is a more authoritative source
than, say, a Chief Scientific Officer, and enshrine his views then that is
their responsibility (although there is no sign that this happened). If they
delegate decions to him then they must still take responsibility for the
decisions he makes.
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an 'Adviser'.
The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
Pamela
2020-05-27 13:05:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 27 May 2020, Roger wrote (in
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
SNIP TEXT
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims
that he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for
the Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims
like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens
of thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
The false claims were spread due his saying just that (herd
immunity) at a meeting in February. When Robert Peston subsequently
appeared on ITV with those same false quotations, which he also
repeated in the Spectator in March, no one from the government
jumped up to take legal action. For the government to deny it ever
happened is just another in their verbal diarrhoea of lies coming
from Downing Street.
Peston was briefed by someone high up in government because he
doesn't get his info from the tea-lady, and this is Peston's
article -
SNIP TEXT
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-
vital-to-stopping-coronavirus
The very idea of acquiring herd immunity and allowing the weak to die
is anathema. I have no idea how any government could ever have come
up with such a policy but ours did. Maybe it was because this
government panicked after taking so long to respond and given poor
resources in the NHS.
The implications of herd immunity were never stated explicitly and
publicly by the government (which is why Roger here says he can't
find it) but several leaks shows what politicans were thinking.
Such quasi-genocide is unlikely to be the product of only one person
but DC had an effective veto on what actions Boris would take and DC
was an early enthusiast for herd immunity. It probably follows from
DC's personal interest in mathematical modelling and game theory.
The FT reported some credible leaks that Cummings was okay with herd
immunity deaths.
It all stinks. Roger will now come along with YouTube videos to say
he can't find where the public was informed about the death-policy
and so it never was really policy. His cover as a gov't plant is
wearing thin.
I have in the past pointed out ad nauseum that this has never been
presented or enacted on as government policy;
Which means nothing.
I have pointed out ad nauseam that Robert Peston does not go on prime
time national news and give a full run down of government thinking
without having been briefed by someone at the top.
Post by Roger
it did not appear in the strategy statement prepared at the end of
Feburary
How very convenient.
Post by Roger
it was not the strategy presented by the Chief Scientific Officer on
the 12th March.
How very convenient.
Post by Roger
There is no trace of it in parliament or law. It was not the policy
that was enacted.
So, now you are admitting that the British government was implementing
policy by hearsay and private briefings to senior MSM journalists.
Post by Roger
But that has nothing to do with my prior point.
Which was presumably by implication calling Robert Peston a liar and a
fantasist?
Post by Roger
You are ascribing 'Responsibility' to Cummings. Cummings is not in a
position to take responsibility. Government Ministers are responsible
for decisions made by the government. If they decide he is a more
authoritative source than, say, a Chief Scientific Officer, and
enshrine his views then that is their responsibility (although there is
no sign that this happened). If they delegate decions to him then they
must still take responsibility for the decisions he makes.
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an
'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
If you join together Roger's odd ideas you get a civil service groupthink
in which processes are all-important and where a well-followed process is
far more important than a good outcome.

In such a world, responsibility gets diluted across as many groups and
individuals as possible, every one of whom will claim to have done exactly
the right thing, even though the outcome maybe deplorable (such as rapid
herd immunity with many deaths).

There are committees and specialists everywhere until no one knows who
started what. No wonder Domininc Cummings, of all people, sees the UK
civil service edifice as rotten and in need of tearing down.

Roger may never understand how regular people on the outside of the
Kafkaesque system he inhabits and loves actually live, work and think.

Instead he spends his time trying to teach real people in the real world
how to think like a civil servant. Oh my goodness!
Roger
2020-05-27 13:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
If you join together Roger's odd ideas you get a civil service groupthink
in which processes are all-important and where a well-followed process is
far more important than a good outcome.
In such a world, responsibility gets diluted across as many groups and
individuals as possible, every one of whom will claim to have done exactly
the right thing, even though the outcome maybe deplorable (such as rapid
herd immunity with many deaths).
Quite the opposite. I think if you try to make a technician responsible for a politicians decision things only go down from there. BTW, I know a country were the real PM is a technician ;-)


I also think this whole stink is counterproductive. Governments with strong majorities can withstand stinks like this and they know it. But by kicking up such a fuss about nothing, then with nothing happening, it just weakens any future criticism for future controversies.

Every day I come in this ng and see people whining on about ridiculous points whilst completely ignoring some very big issues.

Ever occur to you this is exactly what the government wants?

I would suggest you are playing lap dog to the government.
MM
2020-05-31 12:09:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an 'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
And yet he was allowed to use the Rose Garden, which normally only
foreign dignitaries and Prime Ministers use.

MM
JNugent
2020-05-31 13:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an 'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
And yet he was allowed to use the Rose Garden, which normally only
foreign dignitaries and Prime Ministers use.
Envious, much?
Pamela
2020-05-31 15:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an
'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
And yet he was allowed to use the Rose Garden, which normally only
foreign dignitaries and Prime Ministers use.
Envious, much?
Looks like the "witness" was lying.

--
Pamela
2020-05-31 15:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an
'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
And yet he was allowed to use the Rose Garden, which normally only
foreign dignitaries and Prime Ministers use.
Envious, much?
Looks like the "witness" wasn't lying.
abelard
2020-05-31 15:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Cummings is an 'aide', not an 'Officer' nor a 'Consultant' or an
'Adviser'. The responsibility lies with the person he is aiding.
And yet he was allowed to use the Rose Garden, which normally only
foreign dignitaries and Prime Ministers use.
Envious, much?
Looks like the "witness" wasn't lying.
indeed...it was only 'joke'

'joke' is another yet socialist word for lie lololololol
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2020-05-27 12:27:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three
and five."
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered
and unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for
anyone looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings
raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been
made widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from
tv reports!
Yes, and didn't Cummings walk on a very roundabout route to his home?
That was the day he was confronted by a bunch of rent-a-mobs shouting
abuse. How did they know he was going to take the 'scenic route’ to
his house, unless he tipped them off in advance?
How simple is it to arrange a group of your own acquaintances to jump
about in front of you, somewhere around a corner away from anyone who
might recognise them, and then use that excuse to control the official
media?
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that
he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the
Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
The false claims were spread due his saying just that (herd
immunity) at a meeting in February. When Robert Peston subsequently
appeared on ITV with those same false quotations, which he also
repeated in the Spectator in March, no one from the government jumped up
to take legal action. For the government to deny it ever happened is
just another in their verbal diarrhoea of lies coming from Downing
Street.
Peston was briefed by someone high up in government because he doesn't
get his info from the tea-lady, and this is Peston's article -
SNIP TEXT
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-vital-to-
stopping-coronavirus
The very idea of acquiring herd immunity and allowing the weak to die is
anathema. I have no idea how any government could ever have come up with
such a policy but ours did. Maybe it was because this government panicked
after taking so long to respond and given poor resources in the NHS.
<snipped to satisfy the pedants.>
It all stinks. Roger will now come along with YouTube videos to say he
can't find where the public was informed about the death-policy and so it
never was really policy. His cover as a gov't plant is wearing thin.
I’m afraid all the regular trolls will all come along to insist that Peston
made the whole thing up, and he is a socialist anyway so no one can believe a
word he says.

You can tell by the way Peston reports the implied mocking of the FA for even
considering taking any steps to cancel matches or play them in empty stadia,
that the government at that time had no intention of implementing a lockdown,
or even closing any schools.

Only when positive cases started to rise logarithmically in early March, did
they panic and listen to the advice of the scientists (rather than a balding
twat of a bully who was only interested in preserving the profits of major
companies) with a complete u-turn in policy. They suddenly realised how their
previous blanket mockery of countries in lockdown, and refusal to implement
that strategy, was going to overwhelm our hospitals within a week or two.

No wonder they wish to distance themselves from Cummings The Useless
Strategist’s ideas and pretend late Feb - early Mar never existed.

That initial arrogance and willingness to sacrifice anyone over 70, is what
has made us the laughing stock of the world with a higher number of deaths
than any other country on the planet; except the equally arrogant know-it-all
USA.
MM
2020-05-31 12:07:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three
and five."
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered
and unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for
anyone looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings
raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been
made widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from
tv reports!
Yes, and didn't Cummings walk on a very roundabout route to his home?
That was the day he was confronted by a bunch of rent-a-mobs shouting
abuse. How did they know he was going to take the 'scenic route’ to
his house, unless he tipped them off in advance?
How simple is it to arrange a group of your own acquaintances to jump
about in front of you, somewhere around a corner away from anyone who
might recognise them, and then use that excuse to control the official
media?
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that
he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the
Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
The false claims were spread due his saying just that (herd
immunity) at a meeting in February. When Robert Peston subsequently
appeared on ITV with those same false quotations, which he also
repeated in the Spectator in March, no one from the government jumped up
to take legal action. For the government to deny it ever happened is
just another in their verbal diarrhoea of lies coming from Downing
Street.
Peston was briefed by someone high up in government because he doesn't
get his info from the tea-lady, and this is Peston's article -
SNIP TEXT
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-vital-to-
stopping-coronavirus
The very idea of acquiring herd immunity and allowing the weak to die is
anathema. I have no idea how any government could ever have come up with
such a policy but ours did. Maybe it was because this government panicked
after taking so long to respond and given poor resources in the NHS.
The implications of herd immunity were never stated explicitly and
publicly by the government (which is why Roger here says he can't find it)
but several leaks shows what politicans were thinking.
I well remember at one of the earlier press briefings when Sir Patrick
Valance stated the figure of 60% to acquire herd immunity in answer to
one of the questions, the sense being that this is what the government
was proposing.

MM
Keema's Nan
2020-05-31 13:23:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three
and five."
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered
and unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for
anyone looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings
raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been
made widely known and is the target of protesters.
Happens a lot: I almost got to know Corbyn or Jeremy Hunt's house from
tv reports!
Yes, and didn't Cummings walk on a very roundabout route to his home?
That was the day he was confronted by a bunch of rent-a-mobs shouting
abuse. How did they know he was going to take the 'scenic route’ to
his house, unless he tipped them off in advance?
How simple is it to arrange a group of your own acquaintances to jump
about in front of you, somewhere around a corner away from anyone who
might recognise them, and then use that excuse to control the official
media?
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that
he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the
Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
If I was instrumental in advocating a policy which would see tens of
thousands dead, I too would call any reports about it false.
The false claims were spread due his saying just that (herd
immunity) at a meeting in February. When Robert Peston subsequently
appeared on ITV with those same false quotations, which he also
repeated in the Spectator in March, no one from the government jumped up
to take legal action. For the government to deny it ever happened is
just another in their verbal diarrhoea of lies coming from Downing
Street.
Peston was briefed by someone high up in government because he doesn't
get his info from the tea-lady, and this is Peston's article -
SNIP TEXT
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/Herd-immunity--will-be-vital-to-
stopping-coronavirus
The very idea of acquiring herd immunity and allowing the weak to die is
anathema. I have no idea how any government could ever have come up with
such a policy but ours did. Maybe it was because this government panicked
after taking so long to respond and given poor resources in the NHS.
The implications of herd immunity were never stated explicitly and
publicly by the government (which is why Roger here says he can't find it)
but several leaks shows what politicans were thinking.
I well remember at one of the earlier press briefings when Sir Patrick
Valance stated the figure of 60% to acquire herd immunity in answer to
one of the questions, the sense being that this is what the government
was proposing.
MM
It was what the government had in mind, otherwise why brief Robert Peston to
go on national prime time news and mention this 'cool phrase’ that Cummings
had no doubt just dreamt up and Boris thought was spiffing?

In fact from what I remember, ‘herd immunity’ was bandied about by almost
everyone who appeared on TV for a couple of days, until panic set in and the
NHS replied that the hospitals would be overwhelmed within a week.
Pamela
2020-05-27 10:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made widely known and is the target of protesters.
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
Learn how to snip posts.
Pamela
2020-05-27 10:59:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings
raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been
made widely known and is the target of protesters.
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he
attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19
outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
Learn how to snip posts.
It was okay for me. Not for you?
MM
2020-05-31 12:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support
- formal care support - or to family, they will be able to
work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with
strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made widely known and is the target of protesters.
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19 outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
This is not about any of the other alleged ideas of Dominic Cummings.
It is about his decision to break lockdown and drive 250 miles. And
then another 60 round trip to "test his eyesight".

He helped set up the guidance, so why did he not contemplate a clause
in the legislation to allow for "eyeset testing by driving 60 miles"
as an exception? With the acknowledgement of the police, of course,
who doubtless would have had Something To Say about it.

MM
Pamela
2020-05-31 12:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could
use their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look
after a small child, that is an exceptional
circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they
will be able to work through their local authority
hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because
the prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents
or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been
granted special status at school and with the local
authority. During Covid, schools should be open to permit
only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son
away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child,
but having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting
out of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are
scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents
like the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged
"special needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school
population in England. However far fewer at 3% have an
education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special
needs then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the
local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child
with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised
about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made
widely known and is the target of protesters.
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he
attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19
outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
This is not about any of the other alleged ideas of Dominic Cummings.
It is about his decision to break lockdown and drive 250 miles. And
then another 60 round trip to "test his eyesight".
He helped set up the guidance, so why did he not contemplate a clause
in the legislation to allow for "eyeset testing by driving 60 miles"
as an exception? With the acknowledgement of the police, of course,
who doubtless would have had Something To Say about it.
MM
Keema and I have been discussing how some notions advanced by Roger are
those of a government plant aiming to to swing opinion in this group.

Only trouble is some of those notions are simply too bizarre for normal
people to swallow. Surely Roger's controller can see that.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-31 13:57:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could
use their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look
after a small child, that is an exceptional
circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they
will be able to work through their local authority
hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because
the prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents
or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been
granted special status at school and with the local
authority. During Covid, schools should be open to permit
only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son
away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child,
but having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting
out of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are
scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents
like the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged
"special needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school
population in England. However far fewer at 3% have an
education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special
needs then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the
local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child
with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised
about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made
widely known and is the target of protesters.
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he
attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19
outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
This is not about any of the other alleged ideas of Dominic Cummings.
It is about his decision to break lockdown and drive 250 miles. And
then another 60 round trip to "test his eyesight".
He helped set up the guidance, so why did he not contemplate a clause
in the legislation to allow for "eyeset testing by driving 60 miles"
as an exception? With the acknowledgement of the police, of course,
who doubtless would have had Something To Say about it.
MM
Keema and I have been discussing how some notions advanced by Roger are
those of a government plant aiming to to swing opinion in this group.
Only trouble is some of those notions are simply too bizarre for normal
people to swallow. Surely Roger's controller can see that.
Roger has been missing for the last couple of days. I presume he has had some
form of ‘re-training’ from his handlers?
JNugent
2020-05-31 14:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 31/05/2020 14:57, Keema's Nan wrote:

[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Roger has been missing for the last couple of days. I presume he has had some
form of ‘re-training’ from his handlers?
As it happens, he posted a few minutes before yours.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-31 14:11:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Roger has been missing for the last couple of days. I presume he has had some
form of ‘re-training’ from his handlers?
As it happens, he posted a few minutes before yours.
I am well aware of when he is posting, you ignorant troll.

I said he has been missing ‘for the last couple of days’, not he is
missing today.

Do learn to read before rushing to your point scoring replies.
abelard
2020-05-31 15:21:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Roger has been missing for the last couple of days. I presume he has had some
form of ‘re-training’ from his handlers?
As it happens, he posted a few minutes before yours.
bottoms and blue pills to you troll lololololol

facts don't count bum bum lololololol
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2020-05-31 15:20:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could
use their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look
after a small child, that is an exceptional
circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they
will be able to work through their local authority
hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because
the prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents
or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been
granted special status at school and with the local
authority. During Covid, schools should be open to permit
only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son
away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child,
but having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting
out of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are
scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents
like the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged
"special needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school
population in England. However far fewer at 3% have an
education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special
needs then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the
local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child
with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised
about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made
widely known and is the target of protesters.
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he
attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19
outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
This is not about any of the other alleged ideas of Dominic Cummings.
It is about his decision to break lockdown and drive 250 miles. And
then another 60 round trip to "test his eyesight".
He helped set up the guidance, so why did he not contemplate a clause
in the legislation to allow for "eyeset testing by driving 60 miles"
as an exception? With the acknowledgement of the police, of course,
who doubtless would have had Something To Say about it.
Keema and I have been discussing how some notions advanced by Roger are
those of a government plant aiming to to swing opinion in this group.
lololololol blue pills bottoms
Post by Pamela
Only trouble is some of those notions are simply too bizarre for normal
people to swallow. Surely Roger's controller can see that.
lololololol bum bum bum arse bottoms lolololol
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2020-05-31 13:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support
- formal care support - or to family, they will be able to
work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with
strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
This whole discussion seems a bit superfluous. The issue Cummings raised
about safety at his london home is that it's location has been made widely
known and is the target of protesters.
He also says that the protests are in part due to false claims that he
attempted to implement a herd immunity only policy for the Covid-19
outbreak. Who on earth would spread false claims like that?
Well, looking back on this group the first mention of “herd immunity” was
a thread entitled just that, posted on 12th March 2020

Which stated -

"We are not going all out to stop the virus in it's tracks as I believe we
should, but our masters seem to want the cheaper option and let us all get it
and the devil take the hindmost.

We should at the very least copy the Koreans and do a proper job.

Maybe there is some kind of NeoLiberal/Darwinny deity up there who will look
after us.

David Martin Edmunds”

Perhaps you, and all the lying government officials, should ask David Edmunds
where he got the phrase from; because no one from the establishment was
jumping up and down saying that is not our policy on that evening.
Post by MM
This is not about any of the other alleged ideas of Dominic Cummings.
It is about his decision to break lockdown and drive 250 miles. And
then another 60 round trip to "test his eyesight".
He helped set up the guidance, so why did he not contemplate a clause
in the legislation to allow for "eyeset testing by driving 60 miles"
as an exception? With the acknowledgement of the police, of course,
who doubtless would have had Something To Say about it.
MM
JNugent
2020-05-28 18:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support
- formal care support - or to family, they will be able to
work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
*Anyone*?
Pamela
2020-05-28 19:35:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after
a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they will
be able to work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with
strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
*Anyone*?
Any adult appointed by the hospital, social services or whatever.
JNugent
2020-05-28 22:41:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after
a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they will
be able to work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with
strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
"Nursery school teachers teach children between the ages of three and
five."
https://www.inputyouth.co.uk/jobguides/job-nurseryschoolteacher.html
The point being these adults are strangers when first encountered and
unlikely to cause a child stress or trauma. The same goes for anyone
looking after DC's son if both parents were in hospital.
*Anyone*?
Any adult appointed by the hospital, social services or whatever.
*Anyone*?
MM
2020-05-31 12:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 May 2020 02:08:52 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such condition?
Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's
problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs"
to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England.
However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Child care providers. RH
Hair-splitting, much?

MM
JNugent
2020-05-28 18:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary.
If the child is autistic or has some other personality disorder
the getting the child to grandparents or other members of a family
to child knew it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such condition?
Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's
problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like the
extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special needs"
to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in England.
However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs then
why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Is nursery school now compulsory?

Or even ubiquitous?
Pamela
2020-05-28 19:36:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support
- formal care support - or to family, they will be able to
work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Is nursery school now compulsory?
Or even ubiquitous?
Nursery school has been ubiquitous ever since government vouchers.
JNugent
2020-05-28 22:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a
small child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support
- formal care support - or to family, they will be able to
work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did
Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out of
hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Is nursery school now compulsory?
Or even ubiquitous?
Nursery school has been ubiquitous ever since government vouchers.
Does every child attend a nursery?
Pamela
2020-05-30 08:28:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look
after a small child, that is an exceptional
circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they will
be able to work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with
strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Is nursery school now compulsory?
Or even ubiquitous?
Nursery school has been ubiquitous ever since government vouchers.
Does every child attend a nursery?
"Ubiquitious" conveys the essence of the extent of nursery school
participation, even if it not an exact description.
JNugent
2020-05-30 11:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said
that people with children in special circumstances could use
their judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a
question raised at the Daily Briefing in which Jenny Harries
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look
after a small child, that is an exceptional
circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care
support - formal care support - or to family, they will
be able to work through their local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the
prior rule is simply to take what action is reasonably
necessary. If the child is autistic or has some other
personality disorder the getting the child to grandparents or
other members of a family to child knew it would be reasonable
to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a
category and what the degree of severity is of any such
condition? Or is it just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During
Covid, schools should be open to permit only them to attend.
Did Cummings' Durham visit take his son away from school?
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play
Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly
what the child's problem is.
As an aside, defining children as "special needs" is getting out
of hand. Some have serious conditions but others are scarcely
affected.
Schools get more money for special needs pupils and parents like
the extra resources spend on them. This has encouraged "special
needs" to now cover a socking 11.9% of the school population in
England. However far fewer at 3% have an education plan for their
disability.
Anyway back to Cummings. If his son genuinely had special needs
then why wasn't he being cared for during the day by the local
authority?
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with
strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Is nursery school now compulsory?
Or even ubiquitous?
Nursery school has been ubiquitous ever since government vouchers.
Does every child attend a nursery?
"Ubiquitious" conveys the essence of the extent of nursery school
participation, even if it not an exact description.
Here, it only means sufficiently and widely supplied so that more or
less every child could attend. For children of the relevant age, it
rules out the school bus approach and would require establishments very
close to every home (that is, rather more and "better" supply than for
schools in general).
Keema's Nan
2020-05-28 19:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snipped text for brevity>
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with
strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Is nursery school now compulsory?
No. Children can go to nursery from the age of three, and are eligible for
reception class at the infants school in the school year (Sep-Aug) during
which they turn five.

Neither of these are compulsory. Only when they get to year 1 is attendance
compulsory.

However, personally I can’t understand why children would not be sent to
reception class, because it provides a structured but relaxed school
environment where the youngsters learn social skills and group discipline.
JNugent
2020-05-28 22:45:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
<snipped text for brevity>
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
You mean school teachers?
At the age of four?
Nursery schools have teachers. What else do you call them?
Is nursery school now compulsory?
No. Children can go to nursery from the age of three, and are eligible for
reception class at the infants school in the school year (Sep-Aug) during
which they turn five.
"No".

Thank you.
Post by Keema's Nan
Neither of these are compulsory. Only when they get to year 1 is attendance
compulsory.
However, personally I can’t understand why children would not be sent to
reception class, because it provides a structured but relaxed school
environment where the youngsters learn social skills and group discipline.
"I can't understand".

Thank you.
MM
2020-05-31 11:04:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:20:55 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
Yes, if those so-called "strangers" are actually qualified personnel
who know how to provide the care required.

But since I'm here, would any parent (apart from Cummings) think it
would be a good idea to test one's driving ability, eyesight-wise, by
driving 60 miles there and back to a beauty spot during lockdown?

Cummings can thank his lucky stars that he wasn't stopped by the
police, because the excuse "Me eyesight's a bit dodgy, guv" wouldn't
wash with any traffic patrol officer. Driving without due care and
attention springs to mind.

MM
RH156RH
2020-05-31 11:26:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:20:55 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
Yes, if those so-called "strangers" are actually qualified personnel
who know how to provide the care required.
But since I'm here, would any parent (apart from Cummings) think it
would be a good idea to test one's driving ability, eyesight-wise, by
driving 60 miles there and back to a beauty spot during lockdown?
Cummings can thank his lucky stars that he wasn't stopped by the
police, because the excuse "Me eyesight's a bit dodgy, guv" wouldn't
wash with any traffic patrol officer. Driving without due care and
attention springs to mind.
MM
IN America it would be called reckless endangerment ... RH
Keema's Nan
2020-05-31 11:34:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:20:55 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
Yes, if those so-called "strangers" are actually qualified personnel
who know how to provide the care required.
But since I'm here, would any parent (apart from Cummings) think it
would be a good idea to test one's driving ability, eyesight-wise, by
driving 60 miles there and back to a beauty spot during lockdown?
Cummings can thank his lucky stars that he wasn't stopped by the
police, because the excuse "Me eyesight's a bit dodgy, guv" wouldn't
wash with any traffic patrol officer.
It would when he insisted on shaking the officer’s hand, before telling him
that he would be reported to the Chief Constable as soon as possible.

That is how the elite work.

The process is not for the likes of you and me to understand.
Post by MM
Driving without due care and
attention springs to mind.
MM
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-05-31 12:08:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 31 May 2020 12:34:25 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by MM
On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:20:55 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
Yes, if those so-called "strangers" are actually qualified personnel
who know how to provide the care required.
But since I'm here, would any parent (apart from Cummings) think it
would be a good idea to test one's driving ability, eyesight-wise, by
driving 60 miles there and back to a beauty spot during lockdown?
Cummings can thank his lucky stars that he wasn't stopped by the
police, because the excuse "Me eyesight's a bit dodgy, guv" wouldn't
wash with any traffic patrol officer.
It would when he insisted on shaking the officer’s hand, before telling him
that he would be reported to the Chief Constable as soon as possible.
That is how the elite work.
The process is not for the likes of you and me to understand.
How can a Geordie possibly be one of the 'elite'?
NEMO
2020-05-31 13:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
How can a Geordie possibly be one of the 'elite'?
LOL! The mongrelised, inferior sub-louse had spoken!

"You may have something there. This touchy-feely 'New Man' attitude
isn't getting me anywhere. Perhaps I should go for the more basic
Neanderthal approach." -- sick old nazoid paedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron,
Message-ID: <***@news.ukgateway.net>#1/1.

British women do NOT like inferior, mongrelised sub-lice, Andrzej!
Roger
2020-05-31 13:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Sun, 31 May 2020 12:34:25 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by MM
On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:20:55 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
Yes, if those so-called "strangers" are actually qualified personnel
who know how to provide the care required.
But since I'm here, would any parent (apart from Cummings) think it
would be a good idea to test one's driving ability, eyesight-wise, by
driving 60 miles there and back to a beauty spot during lockdown?
Cummings can thank his lucky stars that he wasn't stopped by the
police, because the excuse "Me eyesight's a bit dodgy, guv" wouldn't
wash with any traffic patrol officer.
It would when he insisted on shaking the officer’s hand, before telling him
that he would be reported to the Chief Constable as soon as possible.
That is how the elite work.
The process is not for the likes of you and me to understand.
How can a Geordie possibly be one of the 'elite'?
That's fighting talk.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-05-31 12:07:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:20:55 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
Yes, if those so-called "strangers" are actually qualified personnel
who know how to provide the care required.
So-called 'qualified'.
Post by MM
But since I'm here, would any parent (apart from Cummings) think it
would be a good idea to test one's driving ability, eyesight-wise, by
driving 60 miles there and back to a beauty spot during lockdown?
Beauty spot? In Geordieland???
Post by MM
Cummings can thank his lucky stars that he wasn't stopped by the
police, because the excuse "Me eyesight's a bit dodgy, guv" wouldn't
wash with any traffic patrol officer. Driving without due care and
attention springs to mind.
Does it? How?
JNugent
2020-05-31 13:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:20:55 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Would any parent think it was a good idea to put their child with strangers ? RH
Yes, if those so-called "strangers" are actually qualified personnel
who know how to provide the care required.
...and past active members and supporters of P.I.E.?
Post by MM
But since I'm here, would any parent (apart from Cummings) think it
would be a good idea to test one's driving ability, eyesight-wise, by
driving 60 miles there and back to a beauty spot during lockdown?
It depends on what the "eyesight" (or more likely, eye) problem is.

Conjunctivitis doesn't stop you seeing clearly, it just makes you feel
that you need to stop and rest your eyes. And in a worst case scenario,
should it prove necessary (it seems that it didn't) the other person can
take over driving to return to base.
Post by MM
Cummings can thank his lucky stars that he wasn't stopped by the
police, because the excuse "Me eyesight's a bit dodgy, guv" wouldn't
wash with any traffic patrol officer. Driving without due care and
attention springs to mind.
Is it an offence to drive with adequate eyesight?
JNugent
2020-05-27 01:40:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?

Be fair - would you?
Pamela
2020-05-27 08:44:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child going
entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to look after
it.
JNugent
2020-05-28 18:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child going
entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to look after
it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.

And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
Pamela
2020-05-28 19:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to
look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4 year
old child to live on the street because those in an organisation appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
JNugent
2020-05-28 22:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to
look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4 year
old child to live on the street because those in an organisation appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.

One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
Keema's Nan
2020-05-29 07:20:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to
look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4 year
old child to live on the street because those in an organisation appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
What do you find so bad about the PIE, which Leon Brittan and Sir Peter
Hayman did not?
JNugent
2020-05-30 11:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to
look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4 year
old child to live on the street because those in an organisation appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
What do you find so bad about the PIE, which Leon Brittan and Sir Peter
Hayman did not?
So now you too are attempting to libel the late Leon, eh?
Keema's Nan
2020-05-30 12:52:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem
is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to
look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4 year
old child to live on the street because those in an organisation appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
What do you find so bad about the PIE, which Leon Brittan and Sir Peter
Hayman did not?
So now you too are attempting to libel the late Leon, eh?
Liar.
Pamela
2020-05-30 13:36:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too
sick to look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4
year old child to live on the street because those in an organisation
appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of
connections to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
What do you find so bad about the PIE, which Leon Brittan and Sir Peter
Hayman did not?
So now you too are attempting to libel the late Leon, eh?
Surely you can't libel the dead?
JNugent
2020-05-30 13:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too
sick to look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4
year old child to live on the street because those in an organisation
appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of
connections to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
What do you find so bad about the PIE, which Leon Brittan and Sir Peter
Hayman did not?
So now you too are attempting to libel the late Leon, eh?
Surely you can't libel the dead?
One clearly may not be sued for it (by the victim) in such cases, but
that doesn't change a lie into the truth.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-30 14:36:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too
sick to look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4
year old child to live on the street because those in an organisation
appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of
connections to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
What do you find so bad about the PIE, which Leon Brittan and Sir Peter
Hayman did not?
So now you too are attempting to libel the late Leon, eh?
Surely you can't libel the dead?
Nothing I mentioned in my original post is libellous.

Nuge is just doing his usual ego posturing.
MM
2020-05-31 12:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to
look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4 year
old child to live on the street because those in an organisation appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
What do you find so bad about the PIE, which Leon Brittan and Sir Peter
Hayman did not?
So now you too are attempting to libel the late Leon, eh?
Hardly, since one cannot libel a dead person.

MM
JNugent
2020-05-31 13:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but having
put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings needed to
play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick to
look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4 year
old child to live on the street because those in an organisation appointed to
care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
What do you find so bad about the PIE, which Leon Brittan and Sir Peter
Hayman did not?
So now you too are attempting to libel the late Leon, eh?
Hardly, since one cannot libel a dead person.
Too late, too feeble, too asinine.
Pamela
2020-05-30 08:28:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick
to look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4
year old child to live on the street because those in an organisation
appointed to care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
Beggars can't be choosers.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-30 09:07:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick
to look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4
year old child to live on the street because those in an organisation
appointed to care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
Beggars can't be choosers.
Have you noticed that trolls such as Roger, Nugent, Norman Wells and Todal
have all gone quiet at the same time?
JNugent
2020-05-30 11:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by RH156RH
I do not know what the problem is with the Cummings child, but
having put the "my child has special problems" into play Cummings
needed to play it to its uttermost, ie, say clearly what the
child's problem is.
Er... he didn't want the rsk of his son falling into the hands of
Islington Council and its social services department?
Be fair - would you?
You can't be too fussy when it's allegely a matter of a young child
going entirely unsupervised on account of its parents being too sick
to look after it.
That is exactly what PIE was counting on.
And hence why it is better for the child to be with extended family.
One has to balance the probabilities and risk. One wouldn't leave a 4
year old child to live on the street because those in an organisation
appointed to care for it may just turn out paedophiles.
Well, exactly.
One would drive whatever distance was required to ensure that one's
child was not surrendered to the Labour-run London Borough of
Islington's social services department (with its history of connections
to the Paedophile Information Exchange).
Beggars can't be choosers.
But not enough people, to the obvious chagrin of the journos at The
Guardian (and some at the BBC, ITN and Sky), are beggars.
JNugent
2020-05-27 01:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people
with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and
ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small
child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal
care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their
local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior rule
is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the child is
autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting the child to
grandparents or other members of a family to child knew it would be
reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category and
what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it just an
uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham visit
take his son away from school?
His child is... a child.

Had DC and his wife been hospitalised, there was a severe risk of the
child being taken into "care" by Islington LBC and its Social Services
department with its rather "colourful" past and reputation.

Google "Islington Council" and "Paedophile Information Exchange". The
returns will be instructive.
Pamela
2020-05-27 08:51:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
Post by Pamela
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that
people with children in special circumstances could use their
judgement and ignore the rule.
The best Dominic could find was an off the cuff reply to a question
"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small
child, that is an exceptional circumstance."
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support -
formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work
through their
local authority hubs."
RH That does not change the position of Cummings because the prior
rule is simply to take what action is reasonably necessary. If the
child is autistic or has some other personality disorder the getting
the child to grandparents or other members of a family to child knew
it would be reasonable to do just that. RH
Do we know that Dominic's child genuinely falls into such a category
and what the degree of severity is of any such condition? Or is it
just an uncorrorated rumour?
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham
visit take his son away from school?
His child is... a child.
Had DC and his wife been hospitalised, there was a severe risk of the
child being taken into "care" by Islington LBC and its Social Services
department with its rather "colourful" past and reputation.
Google "Islington Council" and "Paedophile Information Exchange". The
returns will be instructive.
Do you honestly think that if the child of the Prime Minister's right hand
man had to be looked after for a short while by Islington social services
it would become victim to paediophiles?

That council has had its scandals in the past but and has learnt from
that. The CQC now rates it as "good":

https://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/1-101644992
JNugent
2020-05-28 18:52:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted special
status at school and with the local authority. During Covid, schools
should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings' Durham
visit take his son away from school?
His child is... a child.
Had DC and his wife been hospitalised, there was a severe risk of the
child being taken into "care" by Islington LBC and its Social Services
department with its rather "colourful" past and reputation.
Google "Islington Council" and "Paedophile Information Exchange". The
returns will be instructive.
Do you honestly think that if the child of the Prime Minister's right hand
man had to be looked after for a short while by Islington social services
it would become victim to paediophiles?
That council has had its scandals in the past but and has learnt from
https://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/1-101644992
Leopards.

Spots.

Prevention is better than cure.

Even if Islington Social Services had been completely reformed,
scoured-out á la Augean Stables and de-politicised (that's only an
"if"), that child would still be better off with his grandparents and
extended family.
Pamela
2020-05-28 19:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During Covid,
schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings'
Durham visit take his son away from school?
His child is... a child.
Had DC and his wife been hospitalised, there was a severe risk of the
child being taken into "care" by Islington LBC and its Social Services
department with its rather "colourful" past and reputation.
Google "Islington Council" and "Paedophile Information Exchange". The
returns will be instructive.
Do you honestly think that if the child of the Prime Minister's right
hand man had to be looked after for a short while by Islington social
services it would become victim to paediophiles?
That council has had its scandals in the past but and has learnt from
https://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/1-101644992
Leopards.
Spots.
Prevention is better than cure.
Even if Islington Social Services had been completely reformed,
scoured-out a la Augean Stables and de-politicised (that's only an
"if"), that child would still be better off with his grandparents and
extended family.
It's hard to believe a well-connected well-off family known personally to the
Prime Minister and his office with family members in the same city could not
make local arrangements.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-28 19:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During Covid,
schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings'
Durham visit take his son away from school?
His child is... a child.
Had DC and his wife been hospitalised, there was a severe risk of the
child being taken into "care" by Islington LBC and its Social Services
department with its rather "colourful" past and reputation.
Google "Islington Council" and "Paedophile Information Exchange". The
returns will be instructive.
Do you honestly think that if the child of the Prime Minister's right
hand man had to be looked after for a short while by Islington social
services it would become victim to paediophiles?
That council has had its scandals in the past but and has learnt from
https://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/1-101644992
Leopards.
Spots.
Prevention is better than cure.
Even if Islington Social Services had been completely reformed,
scoured-out a la Augean Stables and de-politicised (that's only an
"if"), that child would still be better off with his grandparents and
extended family.
It's hard to believe a well-connected well-off family known personally to the
Prime Minister and his office with family members in the same city could not
make local arrangements.
Yes, especially when his wife’s brother+family live only a few streets away
from his London home.
JNugent
2020-05-28 22:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Vulnerable children such as those with autism have been granted
special status at school and with the local authority. During Covid,
schools should be open to permit only them to attend. Did Cummings'
Durham visit take his son away from school?
His child is... a child.
Had DC and his wife been hospitalised, there was a severe risk of the
child being taken into "care" by Islington LBC and its Social Services
department with its rather "colourful" past and reputation.
Google "Islington Council" and "Paedophile Information Exchange". The
returns will be instructive.
Do you honestly think that if the child of the Prime Minister's right
hand man had to be looked after for a short while by Islington social
services it would become victim to paediophiles?
That council has had its scandals in the past but and has learnt from
https://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/1-101644992
Leopards.
Spots.
Prevention is better than cure.
Even if Islington Social Services had been completely reformed,
scoured-out a la Augean Stables and de-politicised (that's only an
"if"), that child would still be better off with his grandparents and
extended family.
It's hard to believe a well-connected well-off family known personally to the
Prime Minister and his office with family members in the same city could not
make local arrangements.
...or even better non-local ones.

But what about all those non-well-off local residents?

Do their children just potentially belong to the Paedophile Information
Exchange?
Roger
2020-05-26 13:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and ignore the rule.
2. Every time he was asked a question about how he justified his behaviour he should have simply referred the questioner to the special circumstances passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would soon have lost interest.
3. Offered to resign if
a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired from their job for not observing the social distancing rules and not reemployed in the media.
b) Offered to resign if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks the rules is forced to resign.
Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard Castle was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error of someone trying to plug a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger hole.
However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip would have been put on the back burner as the politicians and the media ran away from attacking him when their own position was threatened. If he had to give an explanation for the Barnard Castle trip he should have said his car was playing up on his drive to the NE - s a knocking noise would do the trick - and he wanted to make see how the car was running before the 260 mile drive home.
RH
Actually when this news broke a couple of weeks ago it didn't make many waves. So the press spiced it up with rumours, the most serious of which (he returned at least a second time) was known to be false by journalists following goings on in London.
Roger
2020-05-26 13:08:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired from their job for not observing the social distancing rules and not reemployed in the media.
One rule for the press, another for their prey ;-)
Keema's Nan
2020-05-26 13:27:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people with
children in special circumstances could use their judgement and ignore the
rule.
2. Every time he was asked a question about how he justified his behaviour he
should have simply referred the questioner to the special circumstances
passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would soon have lost interest.
3. Offered to resign if
a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired from their
job for not observing the social distancing rules and not reemployed in the
media.
b) Offered to resign if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks the
rules is forced to resign.
Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard Castle
was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error of someone trying to plug
a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger hole.
However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip
Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive with
uncorrected defective eyesight. If you drive a motor vehicle on a road, when
your eyesight is uncorrected such that you cannot comply with the eyesight
requirements in the act, you will have committed an offence
Post by RH156RH
would have
been put on the back burner as the politicians and the media ran away from
attacking him when their own position was threatened. If he had to give an
explanation for the Barnard Castle trip he should have said his car was
playing up on his drive to the NE - s a knocking noise would do the trick -
and he wanted to make see how the car was running before the 260 mile drive
home.
RH
abelard
2020-05-26 13:29:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 May 2020 14:27:38 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people with
children in special circumstances could use their judgement and ignore the
rule.
2. Every time he was asked a question about how he justified his behaviour he
should have simply referred the questioner to the special circumstances
passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would soon have lost interest.
3. Offered to resign if
a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired from their
job for not observing the social distancing rules and not reemployed in the
media.
b) Offered to resign if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks the
rules is forced to resign.
Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard Castle
was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error of someone trying to plug
a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger hole.
However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip
Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence to drive with
uncorrected defective eyesight. If you drive a motor vehicle on a road, when
your eyesight is uncorrected such that you cannot comply with the eyesight
requirements in the act, you will have committed an offence
meaningless drivel
--
www.abelard.org
RH156RH
2020-05-26 14:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Update on instructions


Cummings should have done is this:

1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and ignore the rule.

2. Every time he was asked a question about how he justified his behaviour he should have simply referred the questioner to the special circumstances passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would soon have lost interest.

3. Offered to resign if

a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired from their job for not observing the social distancing rules and not reemployed in the media.

b) Offered to resign if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks the rules is forced to resign.

Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard Castle was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error of someone trying to plug a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger hole.

However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip would have been put on the back burner as the politicians and the media ran away from attacking him when their own position was threatened. If he had to give an explanation for the Barnard Castle trip he should have said his car was playing up on his drive to the NE - s a knocking noise would do the trick - and he wanted to make see how the car was running before the 260 mile drive home.

This would prompt the question "Why did you not seek the help of a mechanic? "
Best answer: because I did not want to breach the lockdown rules."

Worst answer: there weren't any mechanics available. "

The worst answer is the worst answer because it leads off to another line of questioning - "What efforts did you make to find a mechanic " and such forth.

The best answer is a simple one which leads nowhere beyond the answer itself.

RH
RH156RH
2020-05-26 21:03:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
1. Pointed out the wording of the guidance/law which said that people with children in special circumstances could use their judgement and ignore the rule.
2. Every time he was asked a question about how he justified his behaviour he should have simply referred the questioner to the special circumstances passage in the guidance/law. The reptiles would soon have lost interest.
3. Offered to resign if
a) every one of the reptiles who beseiged his London home is fired from their job for not observing the social distancing rules and not reemployed in the media.
b) Offered to resign if any member of the Commons or Lords who breaks the rules is forced to resign.
Cummings most stupid mistake was his claim that his drive to Barnard Castle was to test his eyesight. He made the classic error of someone trying to plug a hole in a story only to find he had created a bigger hole.
However, if he had done what I propose the Barnard Castle trip would have been put on the back burner as the politicians and the media ran away from attacking him when their own position was threatened. If he had to give an explanation for the Barnard Castle trip he should have said his car was playing up on his drive to the NE - s a knocking noise would do the trick - and he wanted to make see how the car was running before the 260 mile drive home.
RH
https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2020/05/26/how-dominic-cummings-should-have-handled-his-press-confer
Loading...