FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Johnson and Cummings
Johnson and Cummings
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *irldn OP Couple 2 days ago
Brighton |
Boris Johnson regrets not sacking ‘homicidal robot’ Dominic Cummings over Barnard Castle debacle
Boris Johnson had a blazing row with one of his closest former advisers over not sacking Cummings over alleged lockdown breaches and claims after that things got ‘weirder’
+++++
Ooh I remember a few posters on here defending these two back at the time! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Boris Johnson regrets not sacking ‘homicidal robot’ Dominic Cummings over Barnard Castle debacle
Boris Johnson had a blazing row with one of his closest former advisers over not sacking Cummings over alleged lockdown breaches and claims after that things got ‘weirder’
+++++
Ooh I remember a few posters on here defending these two back at the time!"
yep course they would defend them they were on there team, bit like what we are seeing with some posters on here now there team is getting called out for dodgy shit but its ok its within the rules |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 2 days ago
Brighton |
"Boris Johnson regrets not sacking ‘homicidal robot’ Dominic Cummings over Barnard Castle debacle
Boris Johnson had a blazing row with one of his closest former advisers over not sacking Cummings over alleged lockdown breaches and claims after that things got ‘weirder’
+++++
Ooh I remember a few posters on here defending these two back at the time!yep course they would defend them they were on there team, bit like what we are seeing with some posters on here now there team is getting called out for dodgy shit but its ok its within the rules "
The footballisation of politics. Binary, black & white, lack of nuance or critical analysis! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 2 days ago
Brighton |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever."
There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever.
There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did "
I'm a great believer in learning from history but what is the point here? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever."
"There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did"
Which forum role do you think prevents you from naming a poster that supported Cummings? Is it the one about not making stuff up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 1 day ago
Brighton |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever.
There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did
Which forum role do you think prevents you from naming a poster that supported Cummings? Is it the one about not making stuff up?"
Lol the wagons are circling and it is the usual suspects doing it! Surprised a couple more haven’t hitched their wagon on!
Back at the time there were posters defending Johnson for everything he did. Some even attempted a defence (or excuse) of Cummings. I distinctly remember a post challenging those critical of Cummings with “what would you do to protect your family” and “it’s not that big a deal, it’s not as if…[insert something considered worse]”
You can’t prove it didn’t happen as much as I can’t prove it did. But what do I have to gain from making the assertion? Why would I even bother? Pretty pathetic to make things up just as much as it is to assert someone is making stuff up.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Makes me laugh that Boris is convinced he could have won the last election for the Tories. The people I knew who were vocal Johnson supporters defended him at first but the Cummings incident changed the public mood, the perception that the lockdowns were for everyone that we were 'all in it together' was shown to be a total lie when Boris stuck his neck out to help Cummings while people who didn't have two turds to rub together were issued fines by the police who (the bully boys in blue took aim at the soft targets as usual) Those Johnson supporters I know - on and offline - told me they'd never vote for Boris again after party gate. I don't think the electorate will ever forget partygate or forgive Johnson. Its up there with the 3 day week, Thatcher 'milk snatcher" and the Iraq War as something that will forever be part of the public consciousness. That he thinks different puts him in the Deluded Tosspot wing of the party, right next to Liz Truss. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 day ago
Terra Firma |
"The point is be careful who you give blind support and loyalty to
That works on two levels, in reference to Johnson and also to posters on here "
There was no blind support by Johnson over Cummings, he knew what he was getting himself into, Cameron give the boot before him.
If Johnson hadn’t enlisted Cummings to the very top of the government, unelected, I would argue that Brexit may have failed and Johnson would never have been PM. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 1 day ago
Brighton |
"The point is be careful who you give blind support and loyalty to
That works on two levels, in reference to Johnson and also to posters on here
There was no blind support by Johnson over Cummings, he knew what he was getting himself into, Cameron give the boot before him.
If Johnson hadn’t enlisted Cummings to the very top of the government, unelected, I would argue that Brexit may have failed and Johnson would never have been PM. "
Agree with your 2nd para. Not so much 1st. Johnson totally supported Cummings. Anyone saying otherwise is being revisionist. People used to joke that Cummings must hold some dirt on Johnson considering what he got away with. People who worked in Cabinet Office saw first hand. Remember the truth twisters tweet?
The fact that Johnson not only didn’t sack Cummings over Bernard Castle, but actually supported him AND gave an unelected SpAd the opportunity to hold a press conference (statement) in the Rose Garden at No.10 (unprecedented) was unbelievable.
BTW the same people who defended Cummings and Johnson defending Cummings also defended the No.10 partying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 1 day ago
Terra Firma |
"The point is be careful who you give blind support and loyalty to
That works on two levels, in reference to Johnson and also to posters on here
There was no blind support by Johnson over Cummings, he knew what he was getting himself into, Cameron give the boot before him.
If Johnson hadn’t enlisted Cummings to the very top of the government, unelected, I would argue that Brexit may have failed and Johnson would never have been PM.
Agree with your 2nd para. Not so much 1st. Johnson totally supported Cummings. Anyone saying otherwise is being revisionist. People used to joke that Cummings must hold some dirt on Johnson considering what he got away with. People who worked in Cabinet Office saw first hand. Remember the truth twisters tweet?
The fact that Johnson not only didn’t sack Cummings over Bernard Castle, but actually supported him AND gave an unelected SpAd the opportunity to hold a press conference (statement) in the Rose Garden at No.10 (unprecedented) was unbelievable.
BTW the same people who defended Cummings and Johnson defending Cummings also defended the No.10 partying."
What do you disagree with in the first paragraph? Johnson knew exactly what Cummings was capable of and there was nothing blind about it, he used him to take the leadership and become PM. He wasn’t smart enough to do it on his own, and Cummings is such a weasel he needed a front man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 1 day ago
Brighton |
"The point is be careful who you give blind support and loyalty to
That works on two levels, in reference to Johnson and also to posters on here
There was no blind support by Johnson over Cummings, he knew what he was getting himself into, Cameron give the boot before him.
If Johnson hadn’t enlisted Cummings to the very top of the government, unelected, I would argue that Brexit may have failed and Johnson would never have been PM.
Agree with your 2nd para. Not so much 1st. Johnson totally supported Cummings. Anyone saying otherwise is being revisionist. People used to joke that Cummings must hold some dirt on Johnson considering what he got away with. People who worked in Cabinet Office saw first hand. Remember the truth twisters tweet?
The fact that Johnson not only didn’t sack Cummings over Bernard Castle, but actually supported him AND gave an unelected SpAd the opportunity to hold a press conference (statement) in the Rose Garden at No.10 (unprecedented) was unbelievable.
BTW the same people who defended Cummings and Johnson defending Cummings also defended the No.10 partying.
What do you disagree with in the first paragraph? Johnson knew exactly what Cummings was capable of and there was nothing blind about it, he used him to take the leadership and become PM. He wasn’t smart enough to do it on his own, and Cummings is such a weasel he needed a front man. "
I think initially there was blind support. The defence of Bernard Castle demonstrates that. Cummings had served his purpose and Johnson was ruthlessly self-serving so be had the perfect opportunity to get rid then but didn’t. I think it took a while for Johnson to realise Cummings had become a liability, ergo initially blind support. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever."
"There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did"
"Which forum role do you think prevents you from naming a poster that supported Cummings? Is it the one about not making stuff up?"
"Back at the time there were posters defending Johnson for everything he did. Some even attempted a defence (or excuse) of Cummings. I distinctly remember a post challenging those critical of Cummings with “what would you do to protect your family” and “it’s not that big a deal, it’s not as if…[insert something considered worse]”
You can’t prove it didn’t happen as much as I can’t prove it did. But what do I have to gain from making the assertion? Why would I even bother? Pretty pathetic to make things up just as much as it is to assert someone is making stuff up."
So you're not going to tell us which forum rule would be broken by you naming people, nor are you going to admit that you were wrong. Instead you'll just try to change the focus of the discussion, and belittle anyone that shows you up.
Standard behaviour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 1 day ago
Brighton |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever.
There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did
Which forum role do you think prevents you from naming a poster that supported Cummings? Is it the one about not making stuff up?
Back at the time there were posters defending Johnson for everything he did. Some even attempted a defence (or excuse) of Cummings. I distinctly remember a post challenging those critical of Cummings with “what would you do to protect your family” and “it’s not that big a deal, it’s not as if…[insert something considered worse]”
You can’t prove it didn’t happen as much as I can’t prove it did. But what do I have to gain from making the assertion? Why would I even bother? Pretty pathetic to make things up just as much as it is to assert someone is making stuff up.
So you're not going to tell us which forum rule would be broken by you naming people, nor are you going to admit that you were wrong. Instead you'll just try to change the focus of the discussion, and belittle anyone that shows you up.
Standard behaviour."
Didn’t realise I was answerable to you MrDiscretion 
You cannot name and shame in the forums. As this thread talks about people defending what was clearly indefensible, naming them may also be construed as shaming them. I am not going to do that
I am not wrong. People on here defended Johnson defending Cummings. Some defended Cummings.
Why are you getting all defensive? Why does this particular issue animate you so much? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever.
There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did
Which forum role do you think prevents you from naming a poster that supported Cummings? Is it the one about not making stuff up?
Back at the time there were posters defending Johnson for everything he did. Some even attempted a defence (or excuse) of Cummings. I distinctly remember a post challenging those critical of Cummings with “what would you do to protect your family” and “it’s not that big a deal, it’s not as if…[insert something considered worse]”
You can’t prove it didn’t happen as much as I can’t prove it did. But what do I have to gain from making the assertion? Why would I even bother? Pretty pathetic to make things up just as much as it is to assert someone is making stuff up.
So you're not going to tell us which forum rule would be broken by you naming people, nor are you going to admit that you were wrong. Instead you'll just try to change the focus of the discussion, and belittle anyone that shows you up.
Standard behaviour.
Didn’t realise I was answerable to you MrDiscretion
You cannot name and shame in the forums. As this thread talks about people defending what was clearly indefensible, naming them may also be construed as shaming them. I am not going to do that
I am not wrong. People on here defended Johnson defending Cummings. Some defended Cummings.
Why are you getting all defensive? Why does this particular issue animate you so much?"
The naming and shaming rule isn't for 'Feisty said this over there', it's for actually shaming others.
'Feisty said this over there' would just be cross forum discussions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nope not naming as people get sensitive and hit report
However, if anyone is really that interested you can go back through the thread archives and see for yourself "
I actually agree with you that people defended Johnson & Cummings. My perspective is a little different though, I'd say those people were the same people who thought lockdowns were nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 1 day ago
Brighton |
"Nope not naming as people get sensitive and hit report
However, if anyone is really that interested you can go back through the thread archives and see for yourself
I actually agree with you that people defended Johnson & Cummings. My perspective is a little different though, I'd say those people were the same people who thought lockdowns were nonsense. "
Some were some weren’t. Some were simply “Team Boris” or “Blue Team” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nope not naming as people get sensitive and hit report
However, if anyone is really that interested you can go back through the thread archives and see for yourself
I actually agree with you that people defended Johnson & Cummings. My perspective is a little different though, I'd say those people were the same people who thought lockdowns were nonsense.
Some were some weren’t. Some were simply “Team Boris” or “Blue Team”"
Maybe they were, I'm not arsed to go searching.
Was it the same as "team red" defending Durham? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever."
"There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did"
"Which forum rule do you think prevents you from naming a poster that supported Cummings? Is it the one about not making stuff up?"
"Back at the time there were posters defending Johnson for everything he did. Some even attempted a defence (or excuse) of Cummings. I distinctly remember a post challenging those critical of Cummings with “what would you do to protect your family” and “it’s not that big a deal, it’s not as if…[insert something considered worse]”
You can’t prove it didn’t happen as much as I can’t prove it did. But what do I have to gain from making the assertion? Why would I even bother? Pretty pathetic to make things up just as much as it is to assert someone is making stuff up."
"So you're not going to tell us which forum rule would be broken by you naming people, nor are you going to admit that you were wrong. Instead you'll just try to change the focus of the discussion, and belittle anyone that shows you up.
Standard behaviour."
"Didn’t realise I was answerable to you MrDiscretion
You cannot name and shame in the forums. As this thread talks about people defending what was clearly indefensible, naming them may also be construed as shaming them. I am not going to do that
I am not wrong. People on here defended Johnson defending Cummings. Some defended Cummings.
Why are you getting all defensive? Why does this particular issue animate you so much?"
Nobody said you were answerable to me. You just made that up to justify being aggressive.
As FaF has already said, the 'name and shame' rule doesn't work that way. There's no rule that prevents you repeating what someone else has posted. If there were, they'd have to remove the "quote" button.
I've made no comment on Johnson or Cummings. I've only posted here to point out that you're wrong about the forum rules.
I'm not being defensive or animated. Again, that's just you justifying your aggression when someone proves you wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 1 day ago
Brighton |
"There is no way Cummings had any individual defend him, I have never seen that, ever.
There was and they did. His behaviour was excused. It was considered “understandable”. Johnson’s defence of Cummings was also supported. We cannot name specific posters as against forum rules. But they did
Which forum rule do you think prevents you from naming a poster that supported Cummings? Is it the one about not making stuff up?
Back at the time there were posters defending Johnson for everything he did. Some even attempted a defence (or excuse) of Cummings. I distinctly remember a post challenging those critical of Cummings with “what would you do to protect your family” and “it’s not that big a deal, it’s not as if…[insert something considered worse]”
You can’t prove it didn’t happen as much as I can’t prove it did. But what do I have to gain from making the assertion? Why would I even bother? Pretty pathetic to make things up just as much as it is to assert someone is making stuff up.
So you're not going to tell us which forum rule would be broken by you naming people, nor are you going to admit that you were wrong. Instead you'll just try to change the focus of the discussion, and belittle anyone that shows you up.
Standard behaviour.
Didn’t realise I was answerable to you MrDiscretion
You cannot name and shame in the forums. As this thread talks about people defending what was clearly indefensible, naming them may also be construed as shaming them. I am not going to do that
I am not wrong. People on here defended Johnson defending Cummings. Some defended Cummings.
Why are you getting all defensive? Why does this particular issue animate you so much?
Nobody said you were answerable to me. You just made that up to justify being aggressive.
As FaF has already said, the 'name and shame' rule doesn't work that way. There's no rule that prevents you repeating what someone else has posted. If there were, they'd have to remove the "quote" button.
I've made no comment on Johnson or Cummings. I've only posted here to point out that you're wrong about the forum rules.
I'm not being defensive or animated. Again, that's just you justifying your aggression when someone proves you wrong."
Ah so you have no opinion on the actual issue just interpretation of forum rules. Thanks for your valuable contribution
As I said, people get offended easily and hit report. So not risking it thanks.
Are you still denying anyone on here was supporting Cummings and supporting Boris supporting Cummings? The archive is all there if you want to look
As for aggressive! Really? It was you who jumped in and accused me of making things up. I didn’t and now you just look silly and nit picky.
If I CBA I’d quote a few from the archive but if you really care, go look for yourself. And back to my first point to you…why would I bother making that up? To what end? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah so you have no opinion on the actual issue just interpretation of forum rules. Thanks for your valuable contribution
As I said, people get offended easily and hit report. So not risking it thanks.
Are you still denying anyone on here was supporting Cummings and supporting Boris supporting Cummings? The archive is all there if you want to look
As for aggressive! Really? It was you who jumped in and accused me of making things up. I didn’t and now you just look silly and nit picky.
If I CBA I’d quote a few from the archive but if you really care, go look for yourself. And back to my first point to you…why would I bother making that up? To what end? "
I have an opinion on the issue, I just haven't expressed it yet.
I see you've switched from "the rules don't allow it" to "I'm avoiding being reported". Nice swerve.
It's a bit rich to accuse me if not expressing an opinion, and then to accuse me of "still denying" stuff. You should make your mind up.
Why would you bother making stuff up? Because you want to make a point, but can't be bothered to do the work to prove that point. So instead you just assert that it's true, and hope that no one picks you up on it. Then you attack anyone that questions your point, and tell them that it's their job to do the work if they want to disagree.
That isn't engaging in constructive conversation, that's just bullying (which actually is against the forum rules). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 1 day ago
Brighton |
"Ah so you have no opinion on the actual issue just interpretation of forum rules. Thanks for your valuable contribution
As I said, people get offended easily and hit report. So not risking it thanks.
Are you still denying anyone on here was supporting Cummings and supporting Boris supporting Cummings? The archive is all there if you want to look
As for aggressive! Really? It was you who jumped in and accused me of making things up. I didn’t and now you just look silly and nit picky.
If I CBA I’d quote a few from the archive but if you really care, go look for yourself. And back to my first point to you…why would I bother making that up? To what end?
I have an opinion on the issue, I just haven't expressed it yet.
I see you've switched from "the rules don't allow it" to "I'm avoiding being reported". Nice swerve.
It's a bit rich to accuse me if not expressing an opinion, and then to accuse me of "still denying" stuff. You should make your mind up.
Why would you bother making stuff up? Because you want to make a point, but can't be bothered to do the work to prove that point. So instead you just assert that it's true, and hope that no one picks you up on it. Then you attack anyone that questions your point, and tell them that it's their job to do the work if they want to disagree.
That isn't engaging in constructive conversation, that's just bullying (which actually is against the forum rules)."
I think you’d best go back and look at your first post to me where you say…
"Which forum rule do you think prevents you from naming a poster that supported Cummings? Is it the one about not making stuff up?"
You set the tone with a disbelieving opening shot implying I was making it up. If I lacked a spine I’d say that was bullying.
Maybe consider how you start talking to people in the first place and give some thought as to why they may react to you in a certain way.
Where you see aggression I see robust defence. Maybe some people can’t take that and prefer to flower things up, but if you are one then you need to revise how you post in the first place
What exactly have your posts achieved? All you have tried to do is discredit me (which also sounds a bit like bullying).
I say there were people on here defending Cummings and Johnson. I don’t need to prove that to you but I would be rather silly to make that assertion if I couldn’t 🤷🏻♂️
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Its history. To be honest, the whole Covid thing was a massive fuck up. Even Whitty has recently said that they went over the top.
Cummings is an arrogant prick but so what is new? Look at Alastair Campbell when he was Blair’s puppet master! All PMs seem to employ dangerously unstable morons as their senior advisors. Sue Gray is causing massive issues and will be gone before Christmas.
I think this country has bigger problems than rehashing the Cummings saga. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What exactly have your posts achieved?"
Apparently nothing.
I still good the same opinion of you, and it's clear that you haven't changed your mind. One of us is clearly wrong, but we can't agree on whom.
I'd be interested to hear what others think, even if it's only through PM. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 24 hours ago
Brighton |
"What exactly have your posts achieved?
Apparently nothing.
I still good the same opinion of you, and it's clear that you haven't changed your mind. One of us is clearly wrong, but we can't agree on whom.
I'd be interested to hear what others think, even if it's only through PM."
And you ignored the point on your first post setting the tone Well done you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 21 hours ago
Terra Firma |
Johnson and Cummings biggest advocates were northern labour voters, they lapped them up.
Still can't remember people defending Cummings though, in fact I clearly remember the reaction I got in a thread when I mentioned Cummings was an excellent strategist.
I wasn't defending him but pointing out the BS people were spouting about him, a bit like I do when people lose their shit over Trump and start talking nonsense |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 20 hours ago
Brighton |
"Johnson and Cummings biggest advocates were northern labour voters, they lapped them up.
Still can't remember people defending Cummings though, in fact I clearly remember the reaction I got in a thread when I mentioned Cummings was an excellent strategist.
I wasn't defending him but pointing out the BS people were spouting about him, a bit like I do when people lose their shit over Trump and start talking nonsense "
It wasn’t you defending him. You are right about Cummings being an excellent strategist. No doubt about it. Clever bloke. But perhaps lacking in common sense and self awareness. Clearly thought he was untouchable. A Master of the Universe. Turned out be wasn’t! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
