The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Dave0301

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Well, I think it's fairly to say that Boris won't be relishing PMQ's on Wednesday. Starmer will be giving it the full prosecution lawyer treatment.

VinLieger wrote: »

I haven't watched since the whole prorogation debacle but ill deffinitely tune in this week.

There are no PMQs this week I believe, which is a bloody good thing for Boris as Starmer has been running rings around him even before this broke.

namloc1980

Johnson pulling out the glasses to somehow justify Cummings nonsense about going for a drive to test his eyesight was an extraordinary moment.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s recess I think. There isn’t one until 3 June. By which time this will be old news and Starmer will look bad for raking back over the coals. Lucky timing for BJ

No pmqs but pm is scheduled for his first appearance before the liaison committee and, as luck would have it, it is top heavy with tory mps who called on Cummings to go so he won't be relishing it very much.

BonnieSituation

VinLieger wrote: »

I haven't watched since the whole prorogation debacle but ill deffinitely tune in this week.

You'll be disappointed as you're gonna have to wait til June 3rd!

robinph

VinLieger wrote: »

Now the Church of England are getting in on the game, numerous Bishops calling for his sacking or the COE will stop working directly with Johnsons government.

This on the surface isnt massively impactful but for them to get involved in Politics to this granular a level of demanding someone be sacked is very out of the oridinary is indicative again of the outrage many many people are feeling that the rules dont count for a select few.

That in combination with the Daily Mail having some of the more aggressive questioning of Cummings earlier is not a good sign for Johnson. Be interesting to see their front page later and if they stick with the Cummings story or go with the car showrooms opening up.

Dave0301

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Cummings says that on April 11th, he sought medical advice and was told he was "cleared to go back to work and employ child care." So he obviously had access to child care but claimed none of those options were available before he left London. Be curious to know why that was.

I think that his argument is that he didn't want to expose anyone to Covid-19.

The thing I find most outrageous is that he decided to move his family 260 miles with no symptoms of Covid-19 and he has no remorse or regret over it.

As for the performance of Boris, he clearly has as little respect for the UK public as Cummings.

Aidric

ChikiChiki wrote: »

its time for everyone to move on.

This is undoubtedly their position. A lesser scandal would prove them right. Time won't dissolve this however. The public revulsion is near united apart from a few click hungry loyalists.

The lack of any contrition from Cummings coupled with Johnson's usual dithering has put them in an even deeper hole.

Retro.

He's better than the pink panther is Boris

He still eludes capture

flynnlives

He will resign tomorrow or the next day.
Then rehired under another title next year or in next cabinet reshuffle.

Par of the course really; Get caught out, **** up the explaination/apology tour and then resign or be pushed. Come back in a year under another guise.

PropJoe10

Dave0301 wrote: »

There are no PMQs this week I believe, which is a bloody good thing for Boris as Starmer has been running rings around him even before this broke.

Oh damn. Didn't know that. Thanks! What a shame.

Joe_ Public

Dave0301 wrote: »

I think that his argument is that he didn't want to expose anyone to Covid-19.

The thing I find most outrageous is that he decided to move his family 260 miles with no symptoms of Covid-19 and he has no remorse or regret over it.

As for the performance of Boris, he clearly has as little respect for the UK public as Cummings.

His statements dont align, though. "None of our usual child minding options were available" is not the same as saying we didnt want to expose other people. Just curious to know why they were not available, if that's what he's suggesting. If both parents fell ill, someone somewhere was going to end up ultimately being exposed.

Beechwoodspark

At least now there is something approaching an effective opposition to hold BJ to account

robinph

Would normally avoid clicking on any Daily Mail links or even mentioning them for fear of inadvertently making Google think I'm interested in what they have to say. But just popped over to have a look at the comments page and it seems most people still don't believe a word that Cummings said or agree with anything he did.

This is good for keeping the story alive.

banie01

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

At least now there is something approaching an effective opposition to hold BJ to account

Unfortunately it's a matter of quality over quantity for Starmer.
The best leader Labour have had in quite a while, and a forensic questioner.
However the Parliament act, and numbers will do a wonderful job in allowing the Tories to rid this shítstorm out.

Harry Palmr

God + the Daily Mail = trouble if you're a Tory.

Retro.

banie01 wrote: »

Unfortunately it's a matter of quality over quantity for Starmer.
The best leader Labour have had in quite a while, and a forensic questioner.
However the Parliament act, and numbers will do a wonderful job in allowing the Tories to rid this shítstorm out.

Why do I keep reading his name as Jeffrey dahlmer

Enzokk

I would feel sorry for the new Tory MP for Bishop Auckland, where Bernard Castle is located, but seeing as she was joined by far right activists on election night celebrating with her she deserves what she is going to get in regards to criticism for what is happening in her constituency.

declanflynn

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I think it is a truly momentus day for Britain when the media machine unleashed total war on an individual to be sacked from their job and were unsuccessful.


I would imagine the paper editors will try and keep the pressure on by having people stand outside his home.

This is not about a man who drove his family to Durham, or left v right, or Brexit, it is about a man in a senior political position that believes that modern media is irrelevant. The mainstream media are witnessing their end. The media pile-on is paperweight when everybody stands firm.

Your right dick, the british media machine needs to be controlled by the state, like it is in China, it's just not fair when they ask questions about the supreme leader's adviser.

robinph

Barnard Castle is getting great Trip Advisor reviews:

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g190814-d2048791-Reviews-or5-Barnard_Castle-Barnard_Castle_County_Durham_England.html

Professor Moriarty

Retro. wrote: »

Why do I keep reading his name as Jeffrey dahlmer

Dyslexia.

PopePalpatine

devnull wrote: »

Meanwhile, this is the view of the ex head of the BBC Political Unit, who hired Laura K and defended her heavily:
https://twitter.com/RobbieGibb/status/1264970878766460928

Translation: Laura K and co. will remember who holds the purse strings.

Enzokk

I think Laura Kuenssberg did okay today. She was in a tough position in having to ask Cummings the first questions while having no time to process his statement and in fairness Peston was in much the same situation. Beth Rigby was the star today, but she did have time to prepare her questions and I feel she opened the flood gates for those that followed her to ask harder questions.

Peston seems to make his questions too long and allows for wiggle room for those he is asking so they can easily not answer his questions.

Kuenssberg asked a good question for Johnson as well as Peston. They didn't hold back. I suppose, or hope, she was hurt by the criticism of her being a mouthpiece of the government. She deserved it and hopefully she will wake up to the jokers her acquaintances are in government and she should not just trust their statements as they are not just information to pass on but a weapon the government is using.

quokula

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Laura Kuenssberg did okay today. She was in a tough position in having to ask Cummings the first questions while having no time to process his statement and in fairness Peston was in much the same situation. Beth Rigby was the star today, but she did have time to prepare her questions and I feel she opened the flood gates for those that followed her to ask harder questions.

Peston seems to make his questions too long and allows for wiggle room for those he is asking so they can easily not answer his questions.

Kuenssberg asked a good question for Johnson as well as Peston. They didn't hold back. I suppose, or hope, she was hurt by the criticism of her being a mouthpiece of the government. She deserved it and hopefully she will wake up to the jokers her acquaintances are in government and she should not just trust their statements as they are not just information to pass on but a weapon the government is using.

In fairness when the story first broke a couple of days ago her first tweet was to quote her "anonymous source" to corroborate Cummings' side of the story and regurgitate his false denial of Durham police's involvement.

She's only started to come round to the idea of holding him to account at the same time as the Daily Mail. Clearly there's a growing faction in the tories who feel it's time to cut Cummings loose, even if Boris doesn't.

Enzokk

quokula wrote: »

In fairness when the story first broke a couple of days ago her first tweet was to quote her "anonymous source" to corroborate Cummings' side of the story and regurgitate his false denial of Durham police's involvement.

She's only started to come round to the idea of holding him to account at the same time as the Daily Mail. Clearly there's a growing faction in the tories who feel it's time to cut Cummings loose, even if Boris doesn't.

I have been as critical of her as most I think. I still believe she should either move to another position within the BBC or go private as her way of reporting is not fit for purpose. But I will giver her credit when it is due.


As for the excuse Cummings has been using, here is the explanation from Jess Philips in why it was inserted in the first place.

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1264964238558334976?s=20

S.M.B.

Kuenssberg gets a hard time for being far too quick on the trigger with her tweets but you can't say she was toeing the government line today.

When you only see her missteps get highlighted you'd swear she was the worst.

Edit : looks like I'm not alone in my thoughts

Retro.

Listening to a smarty pants radio presenter going for Cummings and BJ

On Johnson " Knows cummings is a liability, has to sack him

On Cummings " he's the story now , knows he has to resign"

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Laura Kuenssberg did okay today. She was in a tough position in having to ask Cummings the first questions while having no time to process his statement and in fairness Peston was in much the same situation. Beth Rigby was the star today, but she did have time to prepare her questions and I feel she opened the flood gates for those that followed her to ask harder questions.

Peston seems to make his questions too long and allows for wiggle room for those he is asking so they can easily not answer his questions.

Kuenssberg asked a good question for Johnson as well as Peston. They didn't hold back. I suppose, or hope, she was hurt by the criticism of her being a mouthpiece of the government. She deserved it and hopefully she will wake up to the jokers her acquaintances are in government and she should not just trust their statements as they are not just information to pass on but a weapon the government is using.

She's the BBC political editor, she ALWAYS asks the first question so she should be ready.

Aidric

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Laura Kuenssberg did okay today. She was in a tough position in having to ask Cummings the first questions while having no time to process his statement and in fairness Peston was in much the same situation. Beth Rigby was the star today, but she did have time to prepare her questions and I feel she opened the flood gates for those that followed her to ask harder questions.

Peston seems to make his questions too long and allows for wiggle room for those he is asking so they can easily not answer his questions.

Kuenssberg asked a good question for Johnson as well as Peston. They didn't hold back. I suppose, or hope, she was hurt by the criticism of her being a mouthpiece of the government. She deserved it and hopefully she will wake up to the jokers her acquaintances are in government and she should not just trust their statements as they are not just information to pass on but a weapon the government is using.

She asked a piss poor vague question while pretending to be outraged. Being the first to ask a question is no excuse. She had the evidence from the weekend papers. If she couldn't formulate a searching question by Monday then it speaks volumes of her ability as a journalist.

Guy:Incognito

https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1265012936705179649

Enzokk

BonnieSituation wrote: »

She's the BBC political editor, she ALWAYS asks the first question so she should be ready.

True, but I do understand why her question wasn't as hard hitting as the others that followed. Cummings really did well with his read statement, it was under questioning where it started to fall apart for him. Basically unless she received prior notice of his statement I won't be critical of her for her questions to him.

Her question to Johnson was very good on maximum transparency though.