UKC

If The Police Charge Cummings...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Paul Sagar 25 May 2020

Dominic Cummings has been reported to Durham Police, who will now be legally required to investigate whether he broke lockdown regulations (which he clearly did).

Now let's examine the Chief of Police's options:

A) don't charge - and incur the wrath of the general public, and make enforcing any future lockdown measures pretty much impossible (pressure will be coming from other constabularies on this front, I expect)

or

B) charge - and incur the wrath of...a deeply compromised PM on the wrong side of public opinion?

I think they go for B)

Which means BoJo is faced with:

1) Sack Cummings in humiliating enforced u-turn made so much worse by Sunday's debacle

or

2) Don't sack Cummings...and effectively say, what, the police are wrong? The firestorm grows.

So watch the news with anticipation over the next few days. The police won't rush into it, I expect, but they have to make a decision now. And when they do...

2
In reply to Paul Sagar:

I hope you are right, but I am sure they will do their best to squirm out of it; no chance of a second lockdown working if they do. 

2
OP Paul Sagar 25 May 2020
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

I imagine that a lot of police officers are mightily pissed off themselves. The last 8 weeks haven't been a picnic for them. Many of them will have lost family members too. And here is a chance for them to say "nobody is above the law". Squirming isn't really an option now: it's do it or don't. 

It may not even be an exaggeration to say that public disturbance could be on the cards if they don't charge him. The levels of outrage in the country are that high, and 8 weeks of lockdown frustration underneath it all...

2
 The Lemming 25 May 2020
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

All Cummings has to do is tough it out today, and then he is golden and untouchable.

Trump toughed everything out and got elected to president.

So why can't Cummings follow the same playbook?

Personally I think he should be hung drawn and quartered for putting so many lives at risk at every stage of this pandemic where he had questionable access to committees or meetings way above his pay grade.

5
 robhorton 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

Option C) would be to issue a fixed penalty and see if he pays up.

I don't think there is any legal duty on the police to actually investigate though is there? Clearly with limited resources they can't follow up on every allegation that a crime has been committed.

 Jon Greengrass 25 May 2020
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

> I hope you are right, but I am sure they will do their best to squirm out of it; no chance of a second lockdown working if they do. 

I suspect this is Cummings' plan, he never wanted the first lockdown.

 JLS 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

I bet the police are now hoping phone records show that DC did indeed go walkabout near Barnard Castle, so they can give him his £60 fine. Currently it looks like they’ve yielded to power in not acting when they’d first become aware of the initial move up North.

Post edited at 12:08
2
 jkarran 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

> Dominic Cummings has been reported to Durham Police, who will now be legally required to investigate whether he broke lockdown regulations (which he clearly did).

> Now let's examine the Chief of Police's options:

>... 

> I think they go for B)

> Which means BoJo is faced with:

> 1) Sack Cummings in humiliating enforced u-turn made so much worse by Sunday's debacle

He can't, he's bound himself and half his government to Cummings in this. Johnson is just horny animated offal without Cummings. 

> or

> 2) Don't sack Cummings...and effectively say, what, the police are wrong? The firestorm grows.

Or go after the Police, discredit the witnesses and investigating officers while abusing D notices and distraction tactics to damp the influence of the press down. This government is rotten to the core and fighting for their lives right now, don't expect reason or decency. 

> So watch the news with anticipation over the next few days.

Yep, the government teeters, a palace coup by the adults left in the Conservative party is an outside possibility as is an entrenching of Cummings corrupt autocratic regime under abused emergency powers. 

Jk

5
 toad 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

All of the legal discussions I've seen suggest lockdown was always unenforceable. It truly was policing by consent and now this horrible arrogant shit has blown a massive hole in that argument

2
 Harry Jarvis 25 May 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Yep, the government teeters, a palace coup by the adults left in the Conservative party is an outside possibility as is an entrenching of Cummings corrupt autocratic regime under abused emergency powers. 

Wishful thinking in extremis. No one in their right minds would want to take on the job of PM at this time. Besides, I'm not sure there are many adults left in the parliamentary party.

2
 jkarran 25 May 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Wishful thinking in extremis.

Totally agree, the alternative, entrenchment is far more likely but both possibilities are now open.

Capability and credibility has been purged from government by Cummings and brexit, not from Parliament. 

Jk

Post edited at 12:35
3
 Blunderbuss 25 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

> All Cummings has to do is tough it out today, and then he is golden and untouchable.

You think this will all disappear tomorrow.....or are you making some other point?

OP Paul Sagar 25 May 2020

If the police issue Cummings with the £60 fine, then they are saying "he broke the rules".

This therefore means "Johnson is wrong, DC did do something wrong".

And then Johnson has to act.

Luckily we aren't the USA, and Trumpism won't work here because we aren't as rabidly divided on tribal lines as they are. The Mail and Tory supporters/MPs have turned on him, there is still here a notion of the common good and not just red tribe vs. blue tribe. So I don't think the Trump playbook can possibly work on this.

3
OP Paul Sagar 25 May 2020
In reply to jkarran:

I was musing over the Palace Coup possibility myself. Worth noting that most Tory MPs hate Cummings, and most of them didn't want Johnson as leader they plumbed for him with noses held because they were terrified of the Farage-Corbyn dynamic pre last election. 

On the other hand the only credible replacement is Gove, and Gove is a Cummings creature too.

What you say about entrenched used of emergency powers is really important actually. This could prove a very critical juncture as to who is accountable and why.

2
1philjones1 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

Unfortunately I don’t think it’s that simple.
 

Firstly, if reporting is correct, the matter has already been dealt with by the Constabulary, in line with the way they dealt with most others who breached the guidelines in their area, by giving advice. Any attempt to issue a FP ticket would be met with legal challenge of double jeopardy and would, I think, succeed. If new evidence comes to light it’s a different ballgame. 


Secondly, there has never been an option to ‘charge’ under the legislation for the offence he has committed.
 

As I, and others from a policing background, have argued on other threads, this is not a policing issue. It is a political one and Johnson needs to stop being so cowardly and deal with it. If he doesn’t, it will be seen to be a green light to any who wants to break the restrictions to do so. This may make policing of it more difficult but, to be fair, it’s never been easy because of the confusion of the legislation and the advice from government. 

 Oceanrower 25 May 2020
In reply to 1philjones1:

Double jeopardy in the UK means you cannot (except in VERY rare circumstances) be tried twice for the same crime.

Could you please tell me what crime he has already been tried for?

 Rob Exile Ward 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

'they plumbed for him with noses held ' I don't think that's true, I think quite a lot of Tories saw Johnson as a bluff, bulldog spirit, John Bull character, - that most rare of things, a popular Tory who could help them win elections indefinitely, however catastrophic the consequences of their policies.

It might have worked, too, if his personal life hadn't gone quite so pear-shaped and this pandemic thingy (as BJ would no doubt say) screwed everything up. Now he has been exposed for what he is - a deflated windbag, a Billy Bunter character who  had a good line in self deprecation and a way with words. Beyond that is nothing.

 The Lemming 25 May 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> You think this will all disappear tomorrow.....or are you making some other point?

My point is that Cummings just has to survive this Bank Holiday weekend's media frenzy and he is golden.

I hate what he stands for and how he is the country's puppet matter with a blonde TV personality as PM.

But it is what it is.

We have a sociopath happy to tough it out and lie so arrogantly and obviously with a PM carved from the same mould.

These f*ckers were voted for by a populus who mostly considered the election as a one policy  referendum to take the nation out of the EU rather than selecting a party to govern a nation.

But then the election was a one horse race because the opposition had an unellectable leader.

1
1philjones1 25 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

Double jeopardy, in my experience, means that you cannot be dealt with twice for the same issue without new evidence. Pretty sure there are stated cases about this although I haven’t researched it. This means if the ‘case’ is finalised with advice given, you can’t then issue a FP. A lawyer/barrister may be able correct me?

 George Ormerod 25 May 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

The double jeopardy law was repealed in 2005.  And as you say he hasn’t been tried for anything, only had a talking to, which they seem to be also denying.  

 Blunderbuss 25 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

This won't disappear tomorrow though, the frenzy is building....

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Agree completely, but the current government appear to think they have a Devine right to rule. If disturbances do occur it will be left to the police to sort it out. 

1philjones1 25 May 2020
In reply to George Ormerod:

Yes but the principle remains under ECHR. 
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love him to face severe punishment, but I don’t think  a fixed penalty ticket quite hits the mark.

This is down to Johnson, not the police, to resolve and they shouldn’t be used as a pawn to achieve a political end- that way lies disaster for what’s left of our democracy and for our policing style. 

OP Paul Sagar 25 May 2020
In reply to 1philjones1:

As I understand it, if you have the virus and don't self-isolate, you're in line for more than just the £60 fine for breaking regulations? So as he was diagnosed with C19 and didn't self-isolate, the double jeopardy issue wouldn't arise presumably as it would now be for something different. Ditto the visit to the Castle.

Agree it is, technically speaking, a political issue and not a policing one. But the police are now going to be forced to make a political decision as they have confirmed they are investigating the castle visit. Like it or not, they're in the politics now. Whatever they do will be political, but they have to choose.

OP Paul Sagar 25 May 2020
In reply to 1philjones1:

Lol can you imagine Cummings being saved by...THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS?!

Just when you thought 2020 couldn't get any more crazy...

In reply to Paul Sagar:

Of course, if he was not a hypocrite he would reject any intervention by ECHR, but as he is and a complete scumbag he will use any means he can to get off. 

1philjones1 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

I’ve not seen that in the legislation regarding other methods of disposal above a fixed penalty- can you link the relevant bit?

I would hope whatever they do is based on the evidence, not the politics. They have now had a formal complaint of further breaches, as I understand it.  If there is new evidence of his further breach of the lockdown after the initial advice was given, I would hope and expect, a fixed penalty ticket to be issued. That is consistent with their policy of dealing with repeat offenders, and not political. 
 

It is a very fine and delicate line they are treading.
 

OP Paul Sagar 25 May 2020
In reply to 1philjones1:

I agree on the second FPN - indeed, if there was a second breach, that allows the police to simply be 'following the rules'. There will be political consequences to their doing so, but it won't be a politically motivated decision. 

And the result is the government will have dug its own grave, the police not being at all to blame. 

All eyes on Barnard Castle...

(Might have been wrong about tougher rules for people with symptoms; was going on what a mate said and what Hancock was 'suggesting' back in March about arresting people who have symptoms and don't self-isolate - quick google indicates they never came through on that.)

1philjones1 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

Agreed. I think you may have been thinking of a power to remove someone with symptoms who was refusing to go home? Seem to recall seeing that?

Post edited at 14:23
OP Paul Sagar 25 May 2020
In reply to 1philjones1:

Yes, I think it was that I was getting confused about. When they said the police would 'arrest' people with symptoms who weren't self-isolating, I assumed they had to have something they were arresting them for, and hence at least potentially a crime they could be charged with (the police, after all, cannot just arrest people cos they feels like it.)

Looks like Matt Hancock - surprise! - was just spaffing nonsense, hence why this hasn't come to pass.

 ScraggyGoat 25 May 2020

When I read the threads title I had a glorious image of County Durhams finest readopting tactics from the Miners Strike, or the Met and the Poll-tax.  Cummings would be forming a crowd-of-one, with not even the anarchists and football specials turning up to help him out.  The mounted police would have to be stood down; wouldn't be fair on the horses to have to potentially stand in something so unpleasant.

Now, back to the real world.

OP Paul Sagar 25 May 2020
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Very good!

 THE.WALRUS 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

I can't see any way out for Boris, other than to dismiss him before the police investigate. And good riddance!

Resigning when the weight of evidence against him becomes overwhelming would make him look even worse than he does already...and would risk unmasking the full extent of his breach, and his lies, to the baying mob!

Interesting that, when a Tory politico gets caught in breach of the travel ban, he is roundly condemned by contributors to the forums on this site.

And yet, when UKC climbers are caught in breach, or declare their opposition to it  they receive quite alot of support. 

7
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Interesting that, when a Tory politico gets caught in breach of the travel ban, he is roundly condemned by contributors to the forums on this site.

> And yet, when UKC climbers are caught in breach, or declare their opposition to it  they receive quite alot of support. 

There is a massive distance between a person who knows themselves to be infected breaching the travel ban by several hundred miles and an uninfected person going out when they shouldn't.

Ferguson got fired for having his girlfriend over at a time when he'd recovered and was almost certainly immune.  So there was near zero medical risk but a breach of guidelines/regulations.  Cummings did something which actually endangered the health of people in Durham.

 off-duty 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

> Dominic Cummings has been reported to Durham Police, who will now be legally required to investigate whether he broke lockdown regulations (which he clearly did).

What can I say. The unelected Dep. PCC has made a pronouncement that, in my view directly impacts on operational policing, outside his role. 

He doesn't really have the power to do this, and there certainly is no "legal requirement" to investigate this.

As with every post I make on this - this is NOT a policing problem. A global pandemic cannot be solved by Policing and legislation.

This development, is...unwelcome.

This is a political bunfight. It's got nothing to do with policing and investigating this further is not going to make the role of the police in this any easier. Quite the reverse.

This call for investigating is exactly the type of sh1tstorm that could be expected when global health crises are attempted to be shoehorned into matters of law.

> Now let's examine the Chief of Police's options:

> A) don't charge - and incur the wrath of the general public, and make enforcing any future lockdown measures pretty much impossible (pressure will be coming from other constabularies on this front, I expect)

> or

> B) charge - and incur the wrath of...a deeply compromised PM on the wrong side of public opinion?

> I think they go for B)

There are numerous options, starting with - file this job in no further action.

But looking at the actual legislation. This is a breach of reg 6 around movement. As I understand it, the offence occurs when the subject fails to comply with a direction given to them by the police.

The penalty is a fixed penalty ticket. It is a summary only offence.

The cops have apparently visited Cummings regarding this matter. Quite what took place isn't clear, but they don't appear to be suggesting that they weren't aware. As part of engage, explain, encourage, they appear to have had some sort of conversation.

Has any direction been issued? Doesn't seem like it? Has any actual offence been committed for which a penalty can be issued? I don't actually think so. 

What is being demanded (and what is required) for this investigation?

Witness statements. Seems straightforward to obtain.

CCTV. Possible to get hold of.

ANPR and mobile phone location data...? For a fixed penalty ticket? For an offence that may not even be made out? I think that would be a disproportionate infringement on rights and a misuse of these surveillance tools. This isn't a police state.

> So watch the news with anticipation over the next few days. The police won't rush into it, I expect, but they have to make a decision now. And when they do...

I cannot say this enough. This isn't a policing problem.

In my opinion he has unquestionably ignored the guidance. The guidance however is not the law.  The law is weak, full of holes and with minor penalties.

The investigation being sought is wholly disproportionate to the offence committed.

The only way this has legs is if there are allegations of perjury/pervert justice as in the cases where people lie about driving to avoid speeding tickets. That does not appear to be the case here. It is an argument about whether his "excuse" matches the letter of the law. It's pretty clear it doesn't match the spirit in my opinion.

Ferguson and Calderwood both resigned without any prosecution. 

This is about principles and politics. Not policing.

Its a prime example of how the creation and politicisation of PCC have distorted the role they are supposed to have, and made the job of policing both Durham and more widely the UK, considerably harder by drawing the police deeper in to this mess, when their role has already become immeasurably harder due to Cummings actions.

Post edited at 18:47
 mark s 25 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

I dont think the police can do fcuk all now to anyone else. 

All those fines are worthless. Some cop giving a fine out based on opinion. 

Lockdown is over for me now. Kids going around my mums so i can go climbing this week. 

6
baron 25 May 2020
In reply to mark s:

> I dont think the police can do fcuk all now to anyone else. 

> All those fines are worthless. Some cop giving a fine out based on opinion. 

> Lockdown is over for me now. Kids going around my mums so i can go climbing this week. 

Cummings was out of order and should be sacked.

However, endangering your family because of Cummings’ behaviour seems a little extreme.

1
 off-duty 25 May 2020
In reply to mark s:

> I dont think the police can do fcuk all now to anyone else. 

> All those fines are worthless. Some cop giving a fine out based on opinion. 

> Lockdown is over for me now. Kids going around my mums so i can go climbing this week. 

I'm assuming this is frustrated anger, rather than serious intent.

Please bear in mind this is about a global pandemic, a highly infectious disease that is fatal. 

This has never been about whether the police can or cannot "do you" for this offence.

This should never be about compliance for fear of legal consequences.

1
In reply to off-duty:

Given we have policing by consent, it does make you wonder if people will withdraw that consent with respect to Corvid regardless of the risk. 

1
 fred99 25 May 2020
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

> Given we have policing by consent, it does make you wonder if people will withdraw that consent with respect to Corvid regardless of the risk. 


Some will.

How many of them have it and will pass it on ?

How many will get infected and end up in hospital, and how many will die ?

How many will they pass it on to ?

Will Cummings have any regrets for what he has put in motion ?

1
 off-duty 25 May 2020
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

> Given we have policing by consent, it does make you wonder if people will withdraw that consent with respect to Corvid regardless of the risk. 

I fear that the more this is pushed towards being a question about policing and legislation, the more likely that is, unfortunately.

Which is why I have repeatedly said that global pandemics cannot be solved by Policing and legislation....

In reply to fred99:

I wouldn’t think so. 

In reply to off-duty:

I agree, but we expect to be lead by example not treated with contempt. More legislation could be put in place but if it is ignored by many what can the police do?

 off-duty 25 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There is a massive distance between a person who knows themselves to be infected breaching the travel ban by several hundred miles and an uninfected person going out when they shouldn't.

> Ferguson got fired for having his girlfriend over at a time when he'd recovered and was almost certainly immune.  So there was near zero medical risk but a breach of guidelines/regulations.  Cummings did something which actually endangered the health of people in Durham.

"Interestingly" (lol) - Ferguson didn't actually breach any legislation - he didn't leave his address, he didn't gather in public in a group of more than 2.  

 mark s 25 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Anger? Absolutely, we the public have been taken for mugs.ive sat at home obeying what they demanded.turns out its just a request.

My actions are not based on his, im returning to normal operations.  Ive been at work as per usual. 

I fully understand its a pandemic. The chance of me catching it or suffering from it are very small. Small enough for me to carry on rather than submitting to the liars who run the show. Its up to me how i interpret the risk now. 

5
 off-duty 25 May 2020
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

> I agree, but we expect to be lead by example not treated with contempt. More legislation could be put in place but if it is ignored by many what can the police do?

That's why the focus should never be on policing and legislation. 

COVID19 doesn't care what you think about it.  It just wants you to spread it.

baron 25 May 2020
In reply to mark s:

You don’t follow the rules just to protect yourself but to protect the most vulnerable.

The majority, who aren’t in danger from Covid, are making sacrifices to keep the minority safe.

The actions of a few selfish people, no matter who they are, shouldn’t be an excuse. 

 off-duty 25 May 2020
In reply to mark s:

> Anger? Absolutely, we the public have been taken for mugs.ive sat at home obeying what they demanded.turns out its just a request.

> My actions are not based on his, im returning to normal operations.  Ive been at work as per usual. 

> I fully understand its a pandemic. The chance of me catching it or suffering from it are very small. Small enough for me to carry on rather than submitting to the liars who run the show. Its up to me how i interpret the risk now. 

You will carry it, infect others and kill them. The lockdown conditions have worked because the overwhelming majority of us have complied.

COVID19 couldn't give two sh1ts who's pissed you off, who's ignored the guidance, or who has decided their desire to "carry on" overrides the harm that will be caused if everyone decides the same.  At the risk of anthromorphising it - all COVID19 wants is to spread.

Our fight isn't with rank hypocrisy, it's with a life threatening virus.

 off-duty 25 May 2020
In reply to baron:

> You don’t follow the rules just to protect yourself but to protect the most vulnerable.

> The majority, who aren’t in danger from Covid, are making sacrifices to keep the minority safe.

> The actions of a few selfish people, no matter who they are, shouldn’t be an excuse. 

I agree, but it's also worth pointing out that though the majority are in low risk groups it's not NO risk groups.

Healthy people with no underlying issues have got extremely ill from this. And died.

Everyone who's ever bought a lottery ticket should have a think about those odds...

In reply to baron:

> You don’t follow the rules just to protect yourself but to protect the most vulnerable.

> The majority, who aren’t in danger from Covid, are making sacrifices to keep the minority safe.

> The actions of a few selfish people, no matter who they are, shouldn’t be an excuse. 

This ^^^

Doesn't matter if Cummings is a lying piece of shit. That's his affair. He seems quite at ease looking at whatever it is he sees in the mirror of a morning. 

Don't be a Cummings and you're golden. 

In reply to baron:

One thing I have never understood is if the most vulnerable are staying home, how are they at risk?

I was talking to a senior medical professor who is shielded, what made me think was when he pointed out that he was on fairly mild medication (immunosuppressive) but was classed as the same as a transplant patient on what he described as “industrial strength” medication. He was of the opinion that those that made the rules really didn’ t understand risk. 

I have had my pay cut, my son’s education disrupted but I have obeyed the rules because we should act together. Now, depending on what Drakeford says on Thursday I may take a different view. 

baron 25 May 2020
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

As I understand it the vast majority of people could quite happily deal with Covid and it’s only a small percentage of the population who are at serious risk.

The problem is that even a small percentage is a huge number which, if they become infected at the same time, would overwhelm the NHS.

So we went into lockdown to protect the vulnerable and to reduce the infection rate.

The problem is how to release the lockdown for most people while keeping the vulnerable locked down.

If the government allow vulnerable people out of lockdown and some/many of them die you can imagine the outcry.

That’s the dilemma the government faces.

In fact, it’s not just easing the lockdown for the vulnerable that is problematic, just look at the problem of getting children back into school.

I can see the time when the old, the ill, BAME, etc are locked down while the remainder go about their business. 

 THE.WALRUS 25 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Not really. Both cases are examples of people who should know better breaking the law.

The risk of spreading the virus is mitigation only.

 rogerwebb 25 May 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> I cannot say this enough. This isn't a policing problem.

Policing problem or not I am struggling to see a circumstance where a plea includes  the line, 

'My Lady my client was only driving to test his eyesight'

and its expected to improve matters for the client. 

Post edited at 21:41
2
 cal.mac 26 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

Misconduct in public office seems a good fit for this. 

 off-duty 26 May 2020
In reply to cal.mac:

> Misconduct in public office seems a good fit for this. 

I've heard that raised before. I think it's a bit of a stretch. No real abuse of powers or responsibilities.  Not really sure it is something that he did as "a public officer acting as such", or whether it really hits wilful neglect of duty or wilful misconduct.

If he'd been stopped and said "Do you know who I am..." there might be an opening.

Blanche DuBois 26 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

> Luckily we aren't the USA, and Trumpism won't work here

Let's see.  Public elected as leader a well known clown and proven liar of known limited intelligence. Senior government members that respond to criticism by lieing, blaming the media, and playing the victim card.  Sounds quite Trumpian to me.

> because we aren't as rabidly divided on tribal lines as they are..

Quite right.  Brexit established that.

(Edit: the last comment was ironic.  I know you Brits used to good at irony, but now not so much, so thought I'd best clarify).

Post edited at 11:06
OP Paul Sagar 26 May 2020
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

I have friends in America. One is a nurse. She has fellow nurses who are Trump supporters who think the lockdown is not necessary because Trump has said so. I repeat: nurses, who worked on overwhelmed Covid wards, siding with Trump.

Another, who lives in California, reported to me that coronavirus denial was standard fare in the small towns east of the Sierra Nevada last week - versus e.g. the Bay Area where everyone is locked down and supporting the lockdown. America has divided on coronavirus exactly on Republican vs. Democrat lines. People are dying there because they believe Fox News and insist that it's all a plot by the Democrats.

Brexit is bad here, but it is nothing like the breakdown in politics and civil society being witnessed in America. They in fact have probably passed the point of no return in terms of being a functioning democracy anymore (which requires power sharing and attitudes of mutual respect and toleration, not just elections). Again, things are bad here, but they are nowhere near that bad - I mean, we have the Daily Mail and the Guardian going after Cummings today. It is inconceivable that e.g. Fox and MSNBC could do the same in America.

Post edited at 12:00
 fred99 26 May 2020
In reply to Paul Sagar:

> I have friends in America. One is a nurse. She has fellow nurses who are Trump supporters who think the lockdown is not necessary because Trump has said so. I repeat: nurses, who worked on overwhelmed Covid wards, siding with Trump.

> Another, who lives in California, reported to me that coronavirus denial was standard fare in the small towns east of the Sierra Nevada last week - versus e.g. the Bay Area where everyone is locked down and supporting the lockdown. America has divided on coronavirus exactly on Republican vs. Democrat lines. People are dying there because they believe Fox News and insist that it's all a plot by the Democrats.

> Brexit is bad here, but it is nothing like the breakdown in politics and civil society being witnessed in America. They in fact have probably passed the point of no return in terms of being a functioning democracy anymore (which requires power sharing and attitudes of mutual respect and toleration, not just elections). Again, things are bad here, but they are nowhere near that bad - I mean, we have the Daily Mail and the Guardian going after Cummings today. It is inconceivable that e.g. Fox and MSNBC could do the same in America.


In that case, the Republicans can go out and mingle (amongst themselves), as before, and catch CV-19 and die. Republican nursing staff can deal with them. The Democrats can stay safe and live.

Next election - Democrat landslide. Followed by a full Congressional and Senate investigation into ALL the questionable shenanigans (and tax matters !) that have been going on.

Many people will of course die in the above scenario, but considering the extreme views and indeed violence of some of them I won't shed a tear.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...