Following Coronavirus Page 550

  • opalw00t 22 May 2020 23:04:08 12,829 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    I assume that Cummings will receive the same treatment as other advisors that have broken the guidelines (e.g. Neil Ferguson).

    [insert sarcastic laughter here]

    Edited by opalw00t at 23:04:31 22-05-2020
  • TheSaint 22 May 2020 23:05:21 19,457 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    X201 wrote:
    grey_matters wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    Laura Kuenssberg has jumped into full defensive mode. It’s pretty embarrassing.
    Of what? Surely not Cummings?
    She had the temerity to report what a source had told her.
    Journalists should never do that.
    It’s her job to report the facts not just take what she hears from unnamed sources at face value and broadcast it to the world. She was undermining the story within eight minutes of it breaking without even getting the police’s side of the story.
  • millerlfc 22 May 2020 23:08:53 639 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    KnuttinAtoll wrote:
    Not-a-reviewer wrote:
    The government has clarified what 2m means:

    https://twitter.com/10downingstreet/status/1263761942424018944?s=21
    What kind of fridges though? The ones that PMs tend to hide in?
    That's the point isn't it? Cummmings has released this deliberately so Internet searches for 'Boris Johnson' and 'fridge' will bring up this rather than reports of him hiding from journalists in a fridge. (Same way that bollocks story from Boris that his hobby was making model buses out of cardboard boxes was to divert away from his brexit bus and the weekly £350m promised for the NHS).
  • richardiox 22 May 2020 23:13:53 8,348 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    But it says in the small print you can drive 280 miles to get help with childcare....from your aging parents. Whilst you're literally inflected with CV. And your wife.

    Fuck me, this is so cut and dry there really is no grey area. it's wrong on so many levels before you even factor in the fact he's the PMs chief advisor.

    All these kids and grandparents desperate to see each other (including mine) - turns out all I need to do is catch CV and we can rhen all go to see them....Although we're strictly not allowed if we're symptomless and been housebound for ten weeks. Makes perfect sense. You can only go and see your parents if you have CV and take your kids with you. Gotcha. Cummings you're a weasel fuck.

    I suspect he never had CV and just wanted to get the fuck outta the London CV epicentre at peak infection time.
  • bzzct 22 May 2020 23:17:39 2,027 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    X201 wrote:
    grey_matters wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    Laura Kuenssberg has jumped into full defensive mode. It’s pretty embarrassing.
    Of what? Surely not Cummings?
    She had the temerity to report what a source had told her.
    Journalists should never do that.
    It’s her job to report the facts not just take what she hears from unnamed sources at face value and broadcast it to the world. She was undermining the story within eight minutes of it breaking without even getting the police’s side of the story.
    Broadcasting what people say is precisely her job. (Obviously that relies on the idea that she's quoting a source that is worth quoting.)

    There's certainly an argument that the current environment where you tweet isolated bits of a story as you find them rather than wait until you've got a certain breadth of information to write up as a package is an issue.

    Edited by bzzct at 23:22:20 22-05-2020
  • TheSaint 22 May 2020 23:38:06 19,457 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    When using unnamed sources good journalists have a duty to corroborate what they are being told before broadcasting it.
  • reddevil93 22 May 2020 23:38:44 15,367 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    She's a vomit inducing shill throwing out whatever insider quotes she can get, without ever questioning her sources. If she wanted to be taken seriously she could at least say 'it is unclear under which guidelines he would've been permitted to make this trip'. But no, she's just a mouthpiece.
  • IMO 22 May 2020 23:45:09 7,169 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    There are clearly no guidelines. Any journalist worth their salt would have laughed in the face of ANYONE trying to fob them of with such a ridiculous answer. If a "source" really exists, it's incredible that she accepted that answer and embarrassing that she actually tweeted it out for other people to read.

    Edited by IMO at 23:45:21 22-05-2020
  • richardiox 22 May 2020 23:47:28 8,348 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    reddevil93 wrote:
    She's a vomit inducing shill throwing out whatever insider quotes she can get, without ever questioning her sources. If she wanted to be taken seriously she could at least say 'it is unclear under which guidelines he would've been permitted to make this trip'. But no, she's just a mouthpiece.
    Yup. Her tweet was basically "I've been told it's not as bad as it sounds" when it categorically is as bad as it sounds. I've had her earmarked as a government shill for about a year and instantly springing to defend the indefensible basically confirms it for me.

    The fucking guy brazenly broke his own rules whilst the rest of the country goes through suffering due to abiding by them.

    Again, according to Laura K I can't go and see my parents unless I contract CV19, in which case I can go stay at theirs for a couple of weeks to get help with childcare.

    Edited by richardiox at 23:48:41 22-05-2020
  • richardiox 22 May 2020 23:56:41 8,348 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Actually fuck the BBC. This story is top story on their website.

    The second and third sentence of the story is given to her source who says he didn't break the guidelines.

    They put that front and centre?

    The source INSISTED he didn't break guidelines. Fuck me, the guidelines couldn't have been clearer about
    -Stay at home if youre self isolating
    -Definitely stay at home if you're infected
    -Only leave home for work or essentials
    -Dont mix with other households
    -Dont use grandparents for childcare
    -Stay home, save lives

    The brass neck of the government to go into spin mode on this and insist that what his family did didn't break guidelines. Wish I knew in March when my family were self isolating. Could have just fucked off to my parents.

    If Cummings' bald egg head doesn't roll over this it's a disgrace (spoiler - it won't. spoiler - the rules are only meant for the plebs)
  • Lukus 23 May 2020 00:03:28 23,104 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Dominic Cummings and Goings.

    The obvious headline.
  • Steve-Perry 23 May 2020 00:04:05 1,104 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 4 months ago
    Daily Mail already beat you to it.
  • Lukus 23 May 2020 00:06:22 23,104 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    God damn it
  • X201 23 May 2020 06:27:38 20,553 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Does The Guardian or Mirror say why this has taken a month to be reported?

    Has the source only just come forward?
  • Tonka 23 May 2020 06:38:28 30,589 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Dougs 23 May 2020 08:25:48 93,552 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Kussenburg is still at it. Generally, I'm not one for BBC bashing but this cosiness absolutely stinks.
  • bzzct 23 May 2020 08:34:33 2,027 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    The prominence given to the unnamed source is basically an implicit acknowledgement that the source is someone so close to Cummings (or is Cummings) that it's being deployed in the role of right-to-reply.

    You read a story about someone reported by others - first thing you do before re-reporting it is call them and say: I've seen this story, do you have anything to say in response before we also run it? And you don't then not include their response if you don't like/believe it.

    Edited by bzzct at 08:35:07 23-05-2020
  • JoelStinty 23 May 2020 08:43:01 8,784 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    ‘Sources close to’ should be on her epitaph on her grave when she dies.
  • Jono62 23 May 2020 08:50:01 24,753 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It's what the S*n say all the time when they want to write their bullshit.
  • simpleexplodingmaybe 23 May 2020 08:53:09 13,239 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    bzzct wrote:
    The prominence given to the unnamed source is basically an implicit acknowledgement that the source is someone so close to Cummings (or is Cummings) that it's being deployed in the role of right-to-reply.

    You read a story about someone reported by others - first thing you do before re-reporting it is call them and say: I've seen this story, do you have anything to say in response before we also run it? And you don't then not include their response if you don't like/believe it.
    It’s almost certainly him or someone acting on his instructions
  • Dougs 23 May 2020 08:56:37 93,552 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    bzzct wrote:
    The prominence given to the unnamed source is basically an implicit acknowledgement that the source is someone so close to Cummings (or is Cummings) that it's being deployed in the role of right-to-reply.

    You read a story about someone reported by others - first thing you do before re-reporting it is call them and say: I've seen this story, do you have anything to say in response before we also run it? And you don't then not include their response if you don't like/believe it.
    That's fine if it's part of a wider piece on whatever the issue is. But such is the social media age, the race to be 'first' means that info is tweeted without any critique whatsoever. That's surely the role of a journalist. The BBC should not be Cummings' right to reply. It reflects very poorly on their independence imo. If No10 have something to say, stick it on the record.
  • bzzct 23 May 2020 08:59:15 2,027 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    X201 wrote:
    Does The Guardian or Mirror say why this has taken a month to be reported?

    Has the source only just come forward?
    Because investigative journalism is slow and hard? That two papers teamed up to run a joint investigation shows a lot of work must have gone into this.

    The first time a story broke about someone prominent breaking lockdown (probably the Scottish medical bod?), every paper will have assigned some staff to scouring for evidence of people they don't like breaking lockdown. Hence you get the lockdown-undermining Telegraph breaking the story about Ferguson, and the anti-Tory Guardian and Mirror breaking the story about Cummings.
  • Load_2.0 23 May 2020 09:02:28 31,354 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    The "them and us" nature of the breaches really grates.

    I've followed the guidelines aware that breaking them as an individual wasn't going to unleash the plague but also acutely conscious that any minuscule risk is multiplied by a factor of millions when you look at the population as a whole.

    Which makes their excuses all the more infuriating. People have missed funerals,
    children's birthdays and postponed weddings but fuck the great unwashed public. "The rules apply to the plebs not those that operate at my level."

    To flaunt the lockdown is one thing, to do it while symptomatic shows a complete and utter disdain
    for the public.

    Edited by Load_2.0 at 09:07:32 23-05-2020
  • beastmaster 23 May 2020 09:11:00 20,431 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Sad thing is they’ll probably end up ok and this will further solidify their argument that is was all over nothing.
  • Not-a-reviewer 23 May 2020 09:11:49 6,180 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Trump and Boris (and Cummings) have al found they can do what they like, all they get is a bit of negative press but they’ve got so many defenders now that it barely matters to their ability to stay in power.
  • Not-a-reviewer 23 May 2020 09:12:18 6,180 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    beastmaster wrote:
    Sad thing is they’ll probably end up ok and this will further solidify their argument that is was all over nothing.
    Whose argument? Their own?
  • Saul_Iscariot 23 May 2020 09:21:23 3,649 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    A guy, sorry but I didn’t catch his name, being interviewed on the BBC said it isn’t could enough that that only sources are coming forward to justify this, and not Cummings. Charlie Staite then proceeded to read what will turn out to be Cumming’s get out clause. The governments advice had an addendum along the lines of it may not be possible to follow the advice, especially where children are concerned.

    It was quite a fair and balanced interview for the most part.

    Edited by Saul_Iscariot at 09:21:49 23-05-2020
  • bzzct 23 May 2020 09:24:00 2,027 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    @Dougs Agreed on the issue with isolated tweets, per top of the page.

    On right-to-reply, that's not how it works - it's not that the BBC *are* the right-to-reply mechanism to the Guardian story - it's that they are offering right-to-reply to their own story. If the source didn't agree to be named, then they're stuck choosing between going with "source" or just parroting the guardian article with no additional information, which is kind of pointless. When another organisation breaks a story you don't have, but that's too important to not cover, you try to move the story on by adding detail.

    Edited by bzzct at 09:24:56 23-05-2020
  • beastmaster 23 May 2020 09:26:24 20,431 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Not-a-reviewer wrote:
    beastmaster wrote:
    Sad thing is they’ll probably end up ok and this will further solidify their argument that is was all over nothing.
    Whose argument? Their own?
    Yep.
  • ZuluHero 23 May 2020 09:30:05 8,623 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    JoelStinty wrote:
    ‘Sources close to’ should be on her epitaph on her grave when she dies.
    'Sources close to her said she was a vomit inducing shill throwing out whatever insider quotes she can get, without ever questioning her sources.

    Gone, but swiftly forgotten.'
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.