Search results

Don't forget his Mum's birthday as well.

That's nothing. In the world of footpaths and bridleways, there was a 20-year argument through the various courts over whether 'may' meant 'must', 'should', or 'could'.

But they must be wrong, because BoJo said yesterday that he had seen the evidence that proved Cummings had done nothing wrong. So, he must have seen evidence that the Police haven't got - in which case can he be done for with-holding evidence?!

Wasn't then - it is now under the relaxed guidelines.

They also conclude that the trip to Durham in the first place wasn't a breach. So, I suspect he may just apologise for his trip out to Barnard Castle with a 'which was the best thing to do in the situation we were in' type comment. BoJo and the rest will then say the main issues were within...

That sums it up for many of us I think!!

Wasn't doubting the report - doubting Cummings'! On that note - why did he have to go to the hospital from his sickbed when he had the 'willing nieces' and parents next door who could have picked his son up? I've also just read his wife's Spectator article for the first time...

But he said he never got out of the car at the hospital. Surely not another porkie?

Saw this on twitter "Durham residents observing lockdown may wish to know that an anagram of Dominic Cummings is dim incoming scum"

It was a bit late for his mother-in-law's birthday (30 March apparently). But I suppose he couldn't fit in all those birthday visits at one time....

They really should be careful about denying Police contacts. If it happened it will be logged.

Yes - you're right. I think what I meant by 'will stand up' was that there was no likelihood of evidence to contradict it. That is - how would you actually prove it's complete BS? We all know it is, but you couldn't prove it. Unless there's something like a Birthday card trip voucher or...

And why choose to go on the very Easter Sunday that cabinet ministers implored us to be extra good in staying at home. If he had waited a couple of days, then he probably wouldn't haven't been spotted. And that's the nub isn't it - he's only admitted to going to Barnard Castle because the...

He also said that the guidance was that he was 'encouraged back to work' so had to drive back to London. That's not true either - the 'encouragement back to work' has only really been since the lockdown easing announcement. Before that it was 'work from home if you can' (still is actually -...

Unless direct evidence is found that Cumming made other trips to Durham (April 19th / May 10th, etc) he'll get away with this - as he has put together a story, whilst full of holes, will stand up. But, in answer to a direct question, he said he hadn't been outside the bounds of London, except...

Me clutching at straws? You said "there never has been a specific offence of just being outside and travelling." I pointed out that there was an offence of 'just being outside and travelling' - unless you had one of the reasonable excuses (which you didn't include in your comment, which was...

Maybe he had a mother's and wife's birthday to celebrate?

? Yes - you seem to be quoting regulation 9, which makes contravening reg 6 an offence. Reg 6 says you can't go out, unless.... So - it was an offence. Hence the involvement of the Police.

Yes there is/was. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made Regulation 6 states "no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse" - and then lists the excuses. So, it was a specific offence to be outside and travelling unless you had a...

The only one innocent in this is his son, and no-one is aiming any vitriol at him. His wife must have been involved and party to the decision. Then she wrote an article that gave every impression (when combined with other information) that they were hunkered down at their home in London. His...