Cummings in the soup?

[Raja Clavata]

21 hours ago, Rewulf said:

So it's not disgraceful behaviour? 

OK.. 

Here's another aspect of the same view. 

https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/remainers-revenge-the-hounding-of-dominic-cummings/

I’m not sure I can honestly categorise it as disgraceful behaviour in a broad brush sense.

If the press are hounding Cummings’ wife, then yes, disgraceful.

If the press are subject to the same social distancing rules as the rest of us, then I don’t know why the Police on the scene outside Cummings’ place didn’t disperse / caution them.

As for Cummings, he is in the public eye and in an important role in the running of this country, I think that makes him pretty much fair game regardless of anyone’s opinion of the character of the man and the way he conducts himself.

Whilst I fully agree that the lefty MSM have gone nuts and had a field day over this, my opinion is that Cummings and then Boris fed the frenzy in the way they handled it, I'm not blaming them but they haven't helped.

Briefings for Britain: were they not previously known as Briefings for Brexit?

You’ve challenged me, perhaps you’ll allow me to reciprocate – please cite an example of an article from a centrist media source which praises Cummings and the Government in their handling of this debacle, there must be many, then we can discuss the article from a relatively neutral aspect – accepted?

On 30/05/2020 at 18:03, Rewulf said:

Let me guess you hate him too ? 😏

Nothing more to say , the 'debacle' is over , the dark lord and his minion still sit on the throne of chaos,  and further attempts to use the gutter media to disrupt OUR governments handling of this crisis , and the troubles to come, will further expose the vitriol and treachery, of what is simply , the losing side.

If we were at war , it would be called sedition , an offence punishable by death.

But in these snowflake times , it will no doubt get approving nods and hearty handshakes from the champagne swilling lefties at their soirees.

Disgraceful behaviour .

Back to this - no, I do not hate him, I barely know anything of him. My initial comment on this thread stated how strongly I felt about Cummings and qualified that it was not a position I took lightly or in any way in a flippant manner. Whilst you may wish to imply I have some kind of unhealthy dislike / hate for many and am some kind of angry saddo hiding behind a keyboard - I can assure that is not the case.

So you bring it back to Brexit, again. The losing side, well I never...

Sedition: Now we are really getting to the crux of the matter and I refer back to the notion of the thin end of the wedge. Whilst you are not openly saying people on the losing side should be executed, I just have this vision from the recent videos of Farage on that fishing charter boat in the Channel where I got the impression he really wished he had a .50cal at his disposal.

Snowflake times: I appreciate that this has become a catch-all phrase but I really don't know why you mention it here? By the way, the last I heard was that the new version of snowflakes and preciousness is all the people frozen stiff in fear that they are going to catch COVID and die - the people that would see the economy and society more or less collapse in order to shield them from the Corona bogey man.

Finally, back to Cummings. I openly admitted I was biased from the off, but in his case from my perspective it is very much the case that the more I look, the less I like.

Accepting that there was no way Boris was going to fire him, I think all that people like me, and I suspect swathes of the general public wanted was for Cummings to show a bit of humility, if he'd done that then with Boris stepping in and saying how it is pretty much everyone would have been appeased.

At least posters like Scully, Vince, Gordon and John come across with a balanced view on this. I'd call that honourable behaviour. 👍 

22 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think the real issue here is that as a supposed skilled political player, Cummings was 'very unwise' to put himself in a position where this could happen.

I accept no law broken, reasonable care exercised, no one put at risk - and I have not (on those grounds) been one calling for him to go.  I am however both disappointed and surprised that he was sufficiently unwise (or just plain stupid) enough to allow himself to be used as a tool to discredit the Government and Prime Minister.  He must know that the lefty press are out to seize on any possible ammunition to discredit him.  This is made more urgent because the left have had no 'good news' from their own side to trumpet about - and now a leader with all the charisma of a damp dish cloth.

And this, for now at least, should pretty much be the conclusion of the matter.

[Raja Clavata]

18 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The politics of the 'hard' left has always been fuelled by hate; remember the various riots around strikes, the anti Semitism, the anti capitalism, the anti austerity.  It is all 'anti' this, that, the other.  Hate is a strong emotion that can be tapped into and exploited to make people feel unified (such as against 'oppressors') - it gains a kind of fervent following amongst certain people.  Something slightly related is happening in the USA right now where justified and serious concern over a wrongful death has been seized on by the 'hate mob' and turned into violence, looting and destruction.

The broader left has mostly largely 'tolerated' the 'hard' left - because without their support they have never had a chance at office.  yes, they have purged a few like Derek Hatton, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone etc., but these are often quietly let back in after the dust has settled.

It is a problem that will never be far below the surface, and is always looking for opportunities to exploit, aggravate and attack by its hate, not opportunities to defuse and calm situations, make amends and learn lessons.

Blimey! History has a habit of suggesting politics of the hard right doesn't always end well either. I think it's fair to say politics in either extreme is bad and fueled by hate. Confident you agree.

I appreciate that many do not like to admit it but fear and hatred from the right almost certainly tipped the balance in the 2016 referendum. Water long gone under the bridge now but difficult for most to argue against.

9 hours ago, lancer425 said:

 Not one for bible quotes but i remembered this from school and thought it very apt.

" persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten. "

Jesus 😛 

[JohnfromUK]

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Confident you agree.

I do agree, of course  .......... but in the UK, the 'hard right' are represented by separate parties (BNP, arguably post Farage UKIP, EDL etc.)  The Tories, as the mainstream right party (and previously Brexit Party, who branched off from UKIP as it moved to the right) exclude them - which is why the likes of BNP, EDL etc. exist - to meet the (small) demand.  The vast majority of the typical middle England Tory party want absolutely nothing to do with the 'hard right' and by and large have been successful in keeping separate.

On the left however, the situation is not the same.  The Labour Party has accepted the hard left - not necessarily with open arms at all times, but nevertheless welcomed them - and many from the hard left have reached positions of high office within the party structure in recent times.  Indeed, the 'front bench' who stood at the last election was composed of many who had in the past been considered 'hard left'.  We have seen shadow front benchers at some very questionable and violent demonstrations and with some very controversial utterances about violence to others in support of political campaigns, anti austerity, anti capitalist, ER etc, and an acceptance of people broadly categorised as 'terrorists' and being 'martyrs'.  In my view, the reason this has happened has been twofold; the Labour party's traditional 'working man' vote has declined as the big labour intensive industries that created that type of voter (steel, coal, shipbuilding) have declined.  In it's place we have a different breed of labour supporter, the so called 'Champagne Socialist'.  It is no coincidence that London has a large percentage of seats held by labour, whereas their support in the 'industrial north' has declined - as has their percentage of the areas seats.

In traditional UK politics (mainly England as Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have different issues having nationalist parties), the election has always actually been determined by a relatively small number of 'swing voters' who have altered allegiance between Labour, Lib Dem and Tory.  The 'bulk' of voters have remained with 'their party' and not moved - which is why we have 'safe seats'.  Under these circumstances, the 'left of centre' vote is really split between the LibDems and Labour - and also in Scotland particularly but also Wales, the Labour vote is also badly leached to the nationalist party.   

There is therefore a real problem as to how the left can ever assume power.  The centre and centre left is heavily 'poached' by the Lib Dems (who have never had a chance of forming a majority, so operate by robbing the chance from others), The Scottish and Welsh votes will suffer badly to the SNP and Plaid Cymru (who are both well left of centre), the hard left don't currently have much of a 'party' but we have seen in the past the Socialist Workers Party.  As Labour has been squeezed in the centre ground, it has moved to the left and allowed back' many who were excluded under Blair's more central 'New Labour'.  Has it won them seats?  No.  Now we have Starmer, will it move back to the centre?  I don't know that it can without a major 'purge' of the hard left because they have become too entrenched - partly because Labour as a party is totally dependant on the Union movement for funding.  It is a huge dilemma for Starmer.  In the mildly left of centre ground he is attacked with some success by the Lib Dems, across the board he loses votes to the nationalists in Scotkand and Wales.  If he cuts out the hard left, and they then stand against his candidate ......... he will never get a majority, which is how the hard left have managed to so successfully infiltrate and largely assume command of the Labour party post the New Labour (Blair/Brown era) project's failure.

The inclusion of the 'hard' element into the mainstream Labour party disquieted many 'old' Labour voters.  Cummings spotted this and managed to 'tap into' their disquiet - hence the Tories did well in these old labour areas in the election last December.  That is (in part anyway) why the left hate him.  In fact - as we now know, he has family in the north and probably understands the issues rather better than many in the Tory party.

The Tories suffered losses of votes (never seats) to UKIP under Farage and later to the Brexit party (also under Farage).  That threat may have abated (for now anyway), but note that the common factor was Farage - and he has not gone away (and probably won't).

Long post, but these are complex issues - and Cummings I think understands these issues better than most.

[Mice!]

[johnphilip]

45 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Sums it up well, and has always been the case . They will be undoing all the great work the fast majority  of the people of this country have done over these last few months try to go about this sensibly.  The government  does not spread the virus people do needlessly  .

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

I do agree, of course  .......... but in the UK, the 'hard right' are represented by separate parties (BNP, arguably post Farage UKIP, EDL etc.)  The Tories, as the mainstream right party (and previously Brexit Party, who branched off from UKIP as it moved to the right) exclude them - which is why the likes of BNP, EDL etc. exist - to meet the (small) demand.  The vast majority of the typical middle England Tory party want absolutely nothing to do with the 'hard right' and by and large have been successful in keeping separate.

On the left however, the situation is not the same.  The Labour Party has accepted the hard left - not necessarily with open arms at all times, but nevertheless welcomed them - and many from the hard left have reached positions of high office within the party structure in recent times.  Indeed, the 'front bench' who stood at the last election was composed of many who had in the past been considered 'hard left'.  We have seen shadow front benchers at some very questionable and violent demonstrations and with some very controversial utterances about violence to others in support of political campaigns, anti austerity, anti capitalist, ER etc, and an acceptance of people broadly categorised as 'terrorists' and being 'martyrs'.  In my view, the reason this has happened has been twofold; the Labour party's traditional 'working man' vote has declined as the big labour intensive industries that created that type of voter (steel, coal, shipbuilding) have declined.  In it's place we have a different breed of labour supporter, the so called 'Champagne Socialist'.  It is no coincidence that London has a large percentage of seats held by labour, whereas their support in the 'industrial north' has declined - as has their percentage of the areas seats.

In traditional UK politics (mainly England as Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have different issues having nationalist parties), the election has always actually been determined by a relatively small number of 'swing voters' who have altered allegiance between Labour, Lib Dem and Tory.  The 'bulk' of voters have remained with 'their party' and not moved - which is why we have 'safe seats'.  Under these circumstances, the 'left of centre' vote is really split between the LibDems and Labour - and also in Scotland particularly but also Wales, the Labour vote is also badly leached to the nationalist party.   

There is therefore a real problem as to how the left can ever assume power.  The centre and centre left is heavily 'poached' by the Lib Dems (who have never had a chance of forming a majority, so operate by robbing the chance from others), The Scottish and Welsh votes will suffer badly to the SNP and Plaid Cymru (who are both well left of centre), the hard left don't currently have much of a 'party' but we have seen in the past the Socialist Workers Party.  As Labour has been squeezed in the centre ground, it has moved to the left and allowed back' many who were excluded under Blair's more central 'New Labour'.  Has it won them seats?  No.  Now we have Starmer, will it move back to the centre?  I don't know that it can without a major 'purge' of the hard left because they have become too entrenched - partly because Labour as a party is totally dependant on the Union movement for funding.  It is a huge dilemma for Starmer.  In the mildly left of centre ground he is attacked with some success by the Lib Dems, across the board he loses votes to the nationalists in Scotkand and Wales.  If he cuts out the hard left, and they then stand against his candidate ......... he will never get a majority, which is how the hard left have managed to so successfully infiltrate and largely assume command of the Labour party post the New Labour (Blair/Brown era) project's failure.

The inclusion of the 'hard' element into the mainstream Labour party disquieted many 'old' Labour voters.  Cummings spotted this and managed to 'tap into' their disquiet - hence the Tories did well in these old labour areas in the election last December.  That is (in part anyway) why the left hate him.  In fact - as we now know, he has family in the north and probably understands the issues rather better than many in the Tory party.

The Tories suffered losses of votes (never seats) to UKIP under Farage and later to the Brexit party (also under Farage).  That threat may have abated (for now anyway), but note that the common factor was Farage - and he has not gone away (and probably won't).

Long post, but these are complex issues - and Cummings I think understands these issues better than most.

Thanks for the reply John, I agree complex issues. Are you sure Cummings was the architect of the Tories doing well in Labour seats, I took it that Labour were the architects of their own demise. Does concrete evidence of this exist or is it largely supposition?

Regarding Labour, I believe they really need to split the two ends of their party, let the lefties over further left and further into oblivion whilst allowing the rest of them to retain centre ground, I believe this would help regulate the shift to the right that the Tories have taken over recent times (I'm not suggesting hard right just further right of centre).

That said, it's not Labour that concern me, I just want Brexit done and dusted so I can go back to being able to vote Tory again...

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

So you bought the Government spin.

Boris saying he wants to ease the lockdown slowly in order to avoid a second wave - he is deliberately misleading the public with that statement.

Until there is a vaccine or herd immunity reached through higher infection levels there will be a second wave.

By taking the tack he did Boris was setting up downstream blame on the public, the Cummings debacle undermines that position for him somewhat.

No need to discuss the extent to which that will affect things as we'd never agree but to dismiss the fact it will be a contributing factor is a blatant attempt to deny the facts and try to take the public for absolute mugs in my opinion.

I don't know how carefully you listen to Boris but in response to the Cummings gig he stated "he regrets the confusion and anger of the public over this" - so, you see, if we weren't confused about it we wouldn't be angry. Stupid public 🙄

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

So you bring it back to Brexit, again. The losing side, well I never...

 

3 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I appreciate that many do not like to admit it but fear and hatred from the right almost certainly tipped the balance in the 2016 referendum. Water long gone under the bridge now but difficult for most to argue against.

Well I never.....

And thats why Im not going to engage with you any more on this , its round and round again and again, pointless.

Not falling out with you , its just not going to ever be resolved.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

Are you sure Cummings was the architect of the Tories doing well in Labour seats

No, I'm not sure - but I have a feeling (and some press reports confirm) that his simple 'Get Brexit Done' message was well received.  The many northern (former) Labour seats were mostly leave - and the Tory campaign (which I believe Cummings was a big part in compiling) was very much aimed at those who felt 'their own party' wasn't representing them on Brexit.

4 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I took it that Labour were the architects of their own demise.

That is certainly also true ....... but the real problem there was that the whole party was split on the Brexit issue.  London area (a lot of Labour seats including many of the leadership) being mainly Remain voters, northern seats being mainly Leave voters.  By sitting on the fence for so long and though (allegedly) a Leaver himself, Corbyn didn't lead and most of his front bench team were Remainers.  Starmer then (though the party was officially originally committed to 'carrying out the referendum result at the ill fated Theresa May election in 2017 campaigned to see the result through) set '5 tests' that effectively meant never leaving.  But that is all old ground.

10 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Does concrete evidence of this exist or is it largely supposition

As above, but it's my interpretation.

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Regarding Labour, I believe they really need to split the two ends of their party, let the lefties over further left and further into oblivion whilst allowing the rest of them to retain centre ground,

I doubt there are enough votes in that to ever get a majority - with the ground shared with the LibDems, who win few seats, but get a lot of votes.

13 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I believe this would help regulate the shift to the right that the Tories have taken over recent times

I don't believe they have really.  Yes in some areas, but that is following public opinion (such as immigration and clamping down on benefit and welfare anomalies and fraud etc.), but (pre Covid) the economic brakes of austerity were being released somewhat.

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, Rewulf said:

 

Well I never.....

And thats why Im not going to engage with you any more on this , its round and round again and again, pointless.

Not falling out with you , its just not going to ever be resolved.

haha, OK. I chose to pick a more recent example than Nazism, my bad...

So, you couldn't find a centrist publication praising Cummings and Boris' recent conduct?

Likewise, no need to fall out but it will be resolved and then you'll need something else to try to trump me with (please don't use Trump though 😛 ).

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

So you bought the Government spin.

Boris saying he wants to ease the lockdown slowly in order to avoid a second wave - he is deliberately misleading the public with that statement.

Until there is a vaccine or herd immunity reached through higher infection levels there will be a second wave.

By taking the tack he did Boris was setting up downstream blame on the public, the Cummings debacle undermines that position for him somewhat.

Just off to work so a quick reply,  I saw the second wave picture on face ache and thought absolutely,  a lot of people are heading for the beaches, 3 or 4 cases of the coastguard being called out just near southport,  others making the news with helicopter rescues. 

The pictures being shown show thousands of people heading for the same places?

Normally 12 ish people in my department per shift but we have 4 in, I'm sure the vast majority of those on the beaches are on furlough,  saying it's not safe to go back to work or send their kids back to school?

Ease things back to normal absolutely but dont all go and gather in large groups.

 

[REDINGTON]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

 

Well I never.....

And thats why Im not going to engage with you any more on this , its round and round again and again, pointless.

Not falling out with you , its just not going to ever be resolved.

finally the penny has truly dropped,,, at last.   this place should change the name to "float watch" due to the amount of fishing than happens, usually by the same anglers.

[Raja Clavata]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I doubt there are enough votes in that to ever get a majority - with the ground shared with the LibDems, who win few seats, but get a lot of votes.

Thanks John. 

WRT to the quoted bit above I was thinking that the left sided centrists could merge. I'm not sure that the changes to the Political system Farage wanted to drive go that far but it would be a logical re-organisation in my mind. Accepting it's easy to say / visualise and highly problematic to get them to all agree to enough of an extent to make happen.

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I was thinking that the left sided centrists could merge.

Unlikely - given that a lot of them only quite recently left Labour (Umuna & Co) - and the soft left has/is fragmented due to all wanting to be leaders and giant egos.  They couldn't even agree on a name - and I think all lost their seats.

The Lib Dems have always been the refuge of the Labour 'moderate', but with a few exceptions (such as Cable), defectors have never made headway as LibDems, partly because the LibDems see themselves as 'different' and partly becauser the Lib Dems didn't want them, only their votes.  They always were 'different' - they were the only national party that could never really hope to win majority alone.

 

[Raja Clavata]

40 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Unlikely - given that a lot of them only quite recently left Labour (Umuna & Co) - and the soft left has/is fragmented due to all wanting to be leaders and giant egos.  They couldn't even agree on a name - and I think all lost their seats.

The Lib Dems have always been the refuge of the Labour 'moderate', but with a few exceptions (such as Cable), defectors have never made headway as LibDems, partly because the LibDems see themselves as 'different' and partly becauser the Lib Dems didn't want them, only their votes.  They always were 'different' - they were the only national party that could never really hope to win majority alone.

 

Indeed, "Change" or whatever they were truly were an omnishambles.

[Retsdon]

Interesting. Seems Cummings cottage doesn't officially exist. https://universalcreditsuffer.com/2020/05/31/cummings-spare-cottage-without-planning-permission-and-pays-no-council-tax/

[AVB]

42 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Interesting. Seems Cummings cottage doesn't officially exist. https://universalcreditsuffer.com/2020/05/31/cummings-spare-cottage-without-planning-permission-and-pays-no-council-tax/

Shocking. Not. Who actually cares? Black Clive Matters is the hot topic. Try to keep up. 

[WalkedUp]

10 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Interesting. Seems Cummings cottage doesn't officially exist. https://universalcreditsuffer.com/2020/05/31/cummings-spare-cottage-without-planning-permission-and-pays-no-council-tax/

That’s interesting, rules don’t apply to those in power. When I applied for planning permission for my house the local councillor decided to make it political and whipped up campaigns against us for photo opportunities. I had a little dig and behold, the little rascal had made unauthorised changes to her own property. On the day for the planning committee visit my wife and 2 month old baby represented our interest and the councillor had organised a protest of 18 people blocking our property. They were sent packing by the Committee. Obviously we got planning approval at committee and she was rebuked by the chair for her incompetence and disgusting behaviour. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by WalkedUp

[Yellow Bear]

10 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Interesting. Seems Cummings cottage doesn't officially exist. https://universalcreditsuffer.com/2020/05/31/cummings-spare-cottage-without-planning-permission-and-pays-no-council-tax/

What a surprise - Massively labour controlled council and massively left wing web site - let us see if there is an enquiry and what it finds before we even think of condemning.

[JohnfromUK]

10 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Seems Cummings 's father's/families cottage doesn't officially exist.

 

14 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Massively labour controlled council and massively left wing web site - let us see if there is an enquiry and what it finds before we even think of condemning.

I believe it was said in some of the original articles that the 'cottage' where Cummings stayed was owned by his parents.  If that is the case (as seems likely as it is within the curtilage of their property) - once again, Cummings himself has done nothing wrong (if indeed anything has been done wrong) - so another 'non story' as regards Cummings.

This perpetual attacking of Cumming's family by the lefty press is very childish and should not happen.  Whatever Cummings may do as a job should not be causing press harassment to his parents or other members of his family.

[Gordon R]

Cummings is a divisive figure, but if the media continue to hound him, he could well end up getting the sympathy vote. The media have been far more shameful than Cummings and just don't seem to know when to stop. They can't get to Cummings, so his family is the next best thing. 

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Cummings is a divisive figure, but if the media continue to hound him, he could well end up getting the sympathy vote.

/\  This.  I'm not either a great Cummings or Boris fan.  The mobbing of Cummings London private home and the current 'press attack' on his family in the Durham area is a disgrace.

What he does in paid employment as an advisor to HMG is of legitimate press interest (for decent journalism), but as a paid employee, he has a right to a private life when not at work.  It isn't the same as someone who has chosen to be an elected representative.  He is just an employee (I assume officially a civil servant, but don't know what he actually qualifies as) and his family are simply that - family and private individuals.  They should be left alone, as should his home, and family.

Edited June 4, 2020 by JohnfromUK

[Retsdon]

31 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Cummings himself has done nothing wrong

From the link....'A search of DH1 3SU, the postcode of the property jointly owned by Dominic Cummings, yields just one result; North Lodge.'

So what about the cottage that he apparently stayed in - on his jointly owned property? 

The thing is, it's not about the cottage per se. If, and at this stage it's only if, it turns out that he's in contravention of planning regulations and has been avoiding paying council tax on  property that he owns, what's anyone supposed to say?'Oh, never mind. I'm sure it was just an oversight? OR ' There was the lock down break and the incredible eye-test driving story. Then there was the absurd boast about having written about Covid last year when in fact the section was edited in after his return from Durham. Now, on the face of it, there's long term avoidance of planning laws and tax liabilities.

This is a bit of a pattern developing here, no? And it's not a pattern that does any credit to his honesty or integrity. Now, you might be happy to follow a proven liar into the Year Zero economic desert that Cummings and his disciples want to lead country.

But others perhaps are not and they've a right to know the sort of person their futures are  being entrusted to.

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

From the link....'A search of DH1 3SU, the postcode of the property jointly owned by Dominic Cummings, yields just one result; North Lodge.'

I hadn't twigged he was a join owner - I had read a similar article elsewhere and it didn't mention ownership, only (I think something like) 'on his family's property'.

 

6 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

This is a bit of a pattern developing here, no?

The predominant pattern I see here is one of relentless press hounding.

As to the council tax/planning permission issues - if Durham Council are investigating as the article claims, then let's see what they find and not prejudge the issue.

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

The thing is, it's not about the cottage per se. If, and at this stage it's only if, it turns out that he's in contravention of planning regulations and has been avoiding paying council tax on  property that he owns, what's anyone supposed to say?'Oh, never mind. I'm sure it was just an oversight? OR ' There was the lock down break and the incredible eye-test driving story. Then there was the absurd boast about having written about Covid last year when in fact the section was edited in after his return from Durham. Now, on the face of it, there's long term avoidance of planning laws and tax liabilities.

And here we have a classic example of flinging some dirt at someone without any real facts or evidence, hoping , because all other attacks have failed, for some of it to stick.

The satellite pictures of the residence show NO cottage, what they do show, is a covered swimming pool, which does have planning permission, and is the 'cottage' that Cummings was staying in , as some have said.

Mr Cummings told a news conference last week that the building was "an isolated cottage" roughly 50 metres from his parents' home, and described it as "sort of concrete blocks".

Now you can try and convert that into a planning application breach if you wish, but like the rest of the press orgy, its going no where .

Move along now , nothing to see here.