Britain Ethics Justice Media Politics

The Cummings Affair – Part 3 – Hate, Hypocrisy and Holiness

The Cummings Affair – Part 3 – Hate, Hypocrisy and Holiness

 When I started writing about this I never intended it to turn into a three part series! But this is the last.   I had to do this one because I hope it will help us to see how hopeless our situation is…hypocrisy stalks the land.   I say hopeless – except for one thing…read on.

Hate

It is astounding that we now have grown people thinking that standing outside their front door banging a saucepan and booing is someone a mature way to behave. I thought ‘Boo for Boris’ was satire and a joke – but apparently not. For those who are not able to make enough noise or muster enough support, this audio was helpfully provided for people to play from their speakers to give the impression of a mass movement.

I feel sorry for any satirical comedian nowadays – truth is more surreal than fiction.

Hypocrisy

Rom. 2:1          You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things

1) Ian Blackford – March 23rd Lockdown announced. March 25th Blackford was in London to be at PM’s Question time.   Then travelled 600 miles to Skye before self-isolating from his wife because he feared he had Covid. Proclaiming in a somber and serious tone how a government advisor should be fired because he travelled 260 miles to self isolate at farm cottage owned by his parents, whilst yourself travelling 600 miles to self isolate is hypocrisy. (Note: in an earlier version of this article I passed on information that Mr Blackford had traveled to appear on Cullin radio on April the 6th. This was wrong. I apologise. It so frustrating getting information from the Internet. You can’t check everything – although in this instance I followed my usual practice of getting two sources. Both were wrong. Anyway apologies for inadvertently misleading anyone who read it. )

2) The Scottish Tories – Kept quiet about the Cummings situation until Douglas Ross, MP for Moray broke ranks and then one by one they came out to call for his sacking. And their reason for joining the mob? Ross Clark, MSP, helpfully explained on BBC Radio Scotland that it was because ‘people are angry’ and ‘the strength of the public mood’.   In other words the Scottish Tories kept silent and eventually came out against Cummings, not on an issue of principle, but because they feared the mob…and wanted to join in. If they think this will bring them votes they are in for a big surprise. The “Tory scum’ out mob will not respect them for it, and those of us who have toyed with voting for them because we wanted someone to stand up to the authoritarian mentality of the Scottish government, and indeed to stand up to the mob. But their actions this week suggest that voting for them would be out of the frying pan into the fire.   Silence, then speaking out in anger, because of the anger of the mob, is hypocrisy. The other Tory MPs who think that if they get rid of Cummings this will bring them popularity and allow them to move on are in for a big surprise if they get their way. They may well lose their PM and their seats as a result.

3) Sir Keir Starmer and Stephen Kinnock – Keir Starmer stated I would have sacked Cummings. But Stephen Kinnock was given a shadow ministers job just after he had been warned by police for breaking lockdown rules. That’s hypocrisy.

4) Eddie Wylie – Chief of British Transport Police in Scotland made two trips from Glasgow to his family in Yorkshire during the lockdown – 480 mile round trips. To complain about Cummings but not about the police is hypocrisy.

5) Iain Stewart – Head of NHS Orkney – travelled several times from Orkney to his family home 100 miles away on the Black Isle. He has apologized for doing so after it was reported. He has been defended by the Scottish government – who nonetheless attack Dominic Cummings – that’s hypocrisy.

6) Emily Thornberry – Who has complained about hateful language and violence in the past tweeted in support of those who threw eggs at Dominic Cummings door and yelled abuse – The people of Islington South & Finsbury can always be relied on to say it as it is’, she tweeted. That’s hypocrisy.

Here are the delightful people she was encouraging –

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1265578340037124098?s=20 

7) Boris Johnson – Talks about support for life and yet has permitted DIY abortions from home and enforced abortion on Northern Ireland. That’s hypocrisy.

8) Dominic Cummings – He helped draw up the rules about lockdown. I don’t have a problem with him going to visit his parents in order to get childcare. I do have a problem with him drawing up a rule saying you should not go back to work if you are ill until you have been cleared. He did not do so – and that is hypocrisy. You can’t have one rule for some and not for others.

9) The BBC – The BBC in its charter promises to bring balanced news to the nation. Emily Maitlis, newsnight presenter came up with this gem this week.

 

Professing to be an independent journalist, whose salary is paid by the taxpayer, yet engaging in directly partisan (and false) politics is hypocrisy. As are the journalists who have crowded outside Cummings house to complain about him not obeying the social distancing rules!

10) Alastair Campbell – Former Tony Blair spin-doctor has tweeted incessantly about this great moral crisis and how dreadful it is. He helpfully regularly retweets details of how to contact your MP and what to say. This is apparently the greatest disaster/betrayal to hit the country since…? Well how about since Mr. Campbell helped Tony Blair convince parliament that Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction which could be used against us – and thus started a war which killed thousands and led to ISIS.  For someone to have moral outrage over a father taking his child to be with his parents – whilst having that amount of blood on his hands is hypocrisy.

11) Piers Morgan – rants every day about the corruption and dishonesty of Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson.  Yet this was the man who as editor of The Daily Mirror and the News of the World defended phone hacking and sought to make money out of endless sex scandals.  Such a man setting himself up as the moral guardian of the nation is hypocrisy.

The Bishops –

There is one other group that I want to mention – and they are the most embarrassing of all. Religious hypocrisy is the worst. Church of England bishops came out one by one to express their outrage at Cummings and Johnson and call for repentance. Yet they never call the nation to repentance for the many real sins that we are involved in. And they turned a blind eye to the imposition of abortion on Northern Ireland. Jesus had a name for such hypocrites – “whitewashed tombs – twice dead”. Once again Brendan O’Neill – a non-Christian manages to sum it up better than most Christian leaders.

More than a dozen bishops denounced Boris’s defence of Cummings as ‘risible’. One, the bishop of Manchester, went further, suggesting that the Church of England should stop working with the government on tackling the pandemic until Boris shows ‘clear repentance’, including by sacking Cummings. Repent, repent! The arrogance of these men and women of the cloth is extraordinary. Do they not know what century it is? The days when the self-styled representatives of God could tell the democratically elected representatives of the people what to do are long gone.

The use of such emotional blackmail – suggesting a withdrawal of the CofE’s support for the government’s efforts against coronavirus until Boris repents for his sins – shows what a morally unserious institution the church has become. Having jettisoned traditional scripture and Biblical thinking, in favour of embracing the cult of relativism and a happy-clappy rainbow non-judgementalism, the church has been reduced to raging against Dominic Cummings to try to show that it still has a semblance of a moral core. Dom is their devil substitute. It’s pathetic, and what’s more it is a threat to democracy. We don’t want the church in politics. Stick to religion, leave politics to the people.

For me the hypocrisy consists not in Mr. Blackford for example going to his family home 600 miles away to isolate – I think he should be entitled to do so. The hypocrisy is when he condemns someone else for doing the very thing he did! That is true in many of the other examples. It’s sad that that hypocrisy in our leaders is reflected in the general population. So on the one hand I have people absolutely furious at those who are not on their side ‘breaking the rules’, but defensive about those on their side who do the same. That also is hypocrisy.

Holiness

It would be depressing just to leave it there so I won’t. Jesus in John Ch. 8 faced up to a mob who were venting their anger on a woman caught in adultery. Everyone knows that he said ‘let him who is without sin cast the first stone’.   Words which are highly applicable to all the hypocrites above – and to all of us –because in some degree we all have a degree of hypocrisy.

But Jesus also said to the woman ‘go and sin no more’. How is that possible?   Our problem is sin – yes societies sin, but also our own. We don’t know how to deal with the sin of society – anarchy and lawlessness will lead to destruction. Lockdown and legalism will lead to more hypocrisy and injustice.  Who is going to deal with sin?  How can we be holy?   Christ alone has the answer.  And he has given it to us.  That is what the Good News is.

I really like what Glen Scrivener says in this video….it’s really well worth watching.

 

Anyway as I said at the beginning , church and people. I have no more idea what will happen with this, than I do about Covid. But this has not been pleasant. I hope I won’t be writing any more about it.  All we can do is plead for mercy and say ‘Lord, enough! We get the message!)…

David

The other two in this series are:

The Sick Nation and Its Healing?

Letter from Australia 44 – Cummings, Compassion, and a Chilling Video

Ps. This from Stephen Clark – a man who I sometimes disagree with – but who has a fine mind, writes well and is always fair is an excellent summary of the legal and political situation.

Nobody has really come out of the Dominic Cummings – Boris Johnson débâcle very well.

First, the media. To begin with, as I posted last week, DC’s journey to Durham was NOT a breach of law. The relevant S.I. allows, under s.6, for reasonable exceptions to the stay at home rule, and it is reasonable to believe that DC’s trip to Durham came within that exception. No crime there, then.

But what of the government’s guidance? The government’s main advice page states – and stated at the relevant time – the need to stay at home if one suspects a household member has (had) symptoms of Covid-19. However, it goes on to state: ‘If you have children, keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.’ Apart from the appalling punctuation, which means that the last quoted sentence is not truly a sentence, this is fairly clear: it gives a measure of discretion and judgment to the individual.

So why have the media failed to mention this? It is as plain as a pikestaff. Then, the journalists swamping DC outside his house to ask about his journey when they themselves are flouting social distancing is an appalling double standard.

On the other hand, Melanie Phillips’s article which began by speaking of ‘public hysteria’ over this could have been a classic example in Thouless’s great little work ‘Straight and Crooked Thinking’ of the use of emotive language for rhetorical effect but which obfuscated the issues. Has she surveyed the British public? Does a negative view of DC’s actions logically entails the proposition that there is public hysteria in the UK? No doubt, some may be hysterical. But this is to commit the classic logical fallacy of substituting the terms ‘all’ or ‘many’ for some.

Secondly, Mr Cummings himself. He did break the guidance when, having gone home on being contacted by his wife on fearing that she had Covid-19, only to return to work later that afternoon. That WAS a breach of the guidance and of the law but hardly anyone comments on this. Curiouser and curiouser.

But the real problem in all this has been missed. DC is great at coming up with effective slogans: ‘Take back control’; ‘Let’s get Brexit done’; ‘Stay at home. Stay safe. Save our NHS’ or words to that effect. The trouble with slogans is that they do not allow for nuances or for personal discretion and judgment. DC knew the guidance and knew that it allowed for him to exercise judgment to protect his child. The problem is that those in the public who simply listen to the slogans (endlessly repeated in the media and by Matt Hancock) but who do not take the trouble to read for themselves the SI and the full text of the official guidance did not know and, it seems, still do not know that the advice allows for exceptional circumstances.

Here is the irony. During the Brexit campaign DC sought to pit the British public against ‘the elite’. But in knowing the government’s advice allowed him to do what he did in driving to Durham, whereas many are not aware of it, he demonstrated that he himself belongs to a certain elite.

The problem runs deep. Advertisers spent a fortune because they know that slick slogans are far more effective than rational argument. And the reason for this is that these days someone can go through school and get excellent grades, get a first in university, without having even heard of Thouless or Toulmin, let alone having read them. The upshot is that critical analysis of WORDS and of the rules which are essential to logical analysis are not being inculcated. Thus, slogans, which do not allow for nuances, are the order of the day. Cummings and Johnson played to this in the BREXIT debate, just as many Remainers did. The reality was far more complex than either side was prepared to admit when making their pitch to the public. Having let this genie out of the bottle, it is now causing endless trouble to the PM. Neil Postman, over 30 years ago, pointed out the contrast between political discourse in 19th century America, where ordinary people, with little education, were able to follow a three day debate between two prominent politicians and what happens today.

The PM, DC, Matt Hancock, politicians of all kinds, the media, the education system and the public are all part of the DC débâcle. It is astonishing in this digital age, when the SI and the government advice can quickly be accessed on line and read in a reasonably short period of time that slogans are still the order of the day. They may win campaigns and elections, but this whole incident has proved how disastrous they can be. That is the real issue to be addressed.

But as Thucydides (a favourite of DC) pointed out in his great ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’, when commenting on war, until human nature could be changed, such things would always happen. Likewise, until the mindset can be changed on how politics and public discourse is conducted can be changed, we shall keep having these problems.

As for those who had penalties slapped on them for driving a distance with their children in similar circumstances to DC, the law is quite clear. Refuse to pay. If then court action follows for refusing to pay an on the spot penalty, let it go to court and raise the proper defence of reasonable excuse under s.6.

As for DC’s drive to Barnard Castle, why did not his wife drive back to London? I think that driving when unsure if one’s sight is good enough to do so could easily land one in trouble with the law. But I shall not comment further on that.

Will he survive? Who knows?

 

19 comments

  1. David – that’s interesting, refuse to pay a fine for doing similar to Cummings? Did I read that right? Are you advocating not paying a fine? Glen Scrivener’s video is interesting. His argument is “our intuitions are running things, not logic”. OK, if we find it intuitively wrong to pay a fine then what for logic?

    He also assumes what could also be called “unconscious bias” determining actions. That’s debatable. He rightly talks of us all coming with assumptions and presuppositions to situations. when encountering other’s assumptions and presuppositions, there inevitably is discomfort, but it is by enduring this and considering others views as well as our own that our horizons are broadened.

    It depends does it not on whether the ego is servant or master as to whether this is the outcome or not?

    I hear what you say about mob rule – its a good point. Have we then got to a point of leaders formulating campaigns and policy out of fear of the mob? It’s possible. And from what you say, your criticism of Blackford being hypocritical is spot on.

    Logically if rules are made and then an “exception” be for Blackford and Cummings then it must be OK for “exception” for everyone else in which case either the law needs to change or it makes no sense to be fining families who do similarly to Blackford and Cummings for childcare/ self isolation. But then what if your average person is fined and they refuse to pay, will they have support for that? Or could they be risking this escalating to a higher fine or even possible prison sentence for not paying, just as Tommy Sherridon had for not paying the poll tax in the 1990s?

    I suppose we could be getting to that, of doing the right thing resulting in prison, just as it was for the apostle Paul and for Martin Luther King.

    There’s nothing new under the sun.

  2. David, once again you’ve summed up this outrageous situation, especially under “The Bishops” but your quote about “whitewashed tombs” and “twice dead” reminded me of a quote I heard recently from our own church minister:

    Those who are born twice, only die once.
    Those who are born only once, die twice.

    To ponder, Isaiah Ch.26, v. 20,21.

  3. For a person to be found guilty of an offense, the burden of proof lies with the accusers, not the accused. In the trial of Jesus, Pilate asks the Jewish leaders, ‘What accusation do you bring against this man’? They don’t bring any accusation, instead they bring a judgment. ‘If he were not a criminal we would not have brought him to you’. Whereupon Pilate abrogates his own responsibility as an unbiased judge by asking Jesus, ‘What have you done wrong’? Thereby inviting Jesus to declare himself guilty. Job done, except Jesus did not oblige.

    Having failed to land a punch on Dominic Cummings, the press gang (good description) then asked him if he would like to apologise and say ‘sorry’. In other words, we have been unable to prove you acted unlawfully, so why don’t you just admit it instead? We all know what the following day’s headlines would have screamed at us had he said ‘sorry’.

    As a footnote, there are over 550 MPs whose constituencies lie outside Greater London, plus a further 700 or more in the Upper House. Most, if not all of them, have a second home in London. Why don’t some investigative journalists do some research to establish how many left the hot bed of infection in London after lockdown, within a day or two of DC on the 27th, how many may have been symptomatic and how many may have broken the rules about self isolation since they got home. Why the focus on one man when the huge elephant in the room may have carried the virus to all corners of the UK? Too much like hard work?

  4. Hello David. I am curious as to who Stephen Clark is. I can’t find a Stephen Clark commenting on Dominic Cummings in this way on Google. Would you tell me where your Stephen Clark quotation is from and who he is?

    I like what he has written and what you have written.

  5. The whole sorry saga reminded me of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvGmOZ5T6_Y
    . The clerics [reminding me of an unforgiving hunting pack] are sanctimoniously protesting from a safe [legally privileged] position, of course. If only there were such an outcry against politicians committing adultery! A resignation would be an honourable course of action, but I am not holding my breath!

  6. Fascinating analysis but am puzzled by Point 8 . Surely Cummings in his statement did indicate he get medical clearance before returning to London .

  7. 1 Not paying fine.
    This is a way of having your day in court, to mount a defence, or mitigation (not a defence but which could result in an absolute or conditional discharge.)
    Equality of access to justice, according to the law.through lawyers and the courts,has been severely curtailed in England and Wales through the decline of legal aid, starting with Lord McKay of Clashfern appointed by Thatcher.
    (2 As an aside, I wonder what Starmer’s view would have been if something similar had happened on his watch as DPP under the Labour Government. Would he support of oppose a prosecution?)

    3 The law
    3.1 Prominent on his desk in chambers were two tomes, the Green Book and the White Book , authoritative civil, County and High Court practice and commentary as he decided and directed cases before him.
    One phrase comes to mind that the Registrar (Judge) used on occasion was, ” rules are for fools and the guidance of wise men.”
    3.2 In this present instance it is worth recalling that the Crown Prosecution Service has made it known that there have been wrongful charges and convictions during lockdown as a result of the rushed nature of the emergency laws and pressure of the pandemic.
    3.3 What was the main purpose spirit of the legislation. Without looking it up was it not to stop or control the risk of spread of infection?
    3.4 From Cummings account it seems there would have been little or no risk of spread, perhaps other than the child attending hospital, presumably on medical advice or parental judgement.
    3.5 And, importantly, what were Cummings intentions in all this? That he was above and beyond the law? That he was reckless, negligent?
    3.6 It would seems that a submission that he was careful to comply with the spirit of the law, applying the mischief rule of construction, that is the purpose of the law, the mischief it was passed to prevent, minimise – the spread would carry weight.
    3.7 That would be the foundation of which to base the particular details of the law which Stephen Clark goes into. Andrew Lincoln posting a comment on an Anglican Blog fleshes it out as well:
    ” An exception was allowed for families to be able to help out with childcare in the situation of both parents falling ill and this has been confirmed and clarified twice by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. What follows is based in particular on the account on the BBC website (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52784152) and on the Govt website in the section “If you are living with children” (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance/stay-at-home-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection).

    Official guidance published on March 12 on the govt. website says, “it is very important that individuals with symptoms that may be due to coronavirus and their household members stay at home.” However, it acknowledges that it is not always straightforward when children are involved. It states: “If you have children, keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.”
    The day after lockdown began, 24 March, well before any issue about Cummings arose, the deputy chief medical officer for England, Dr Jenny Harries, clarified who could look after a child if both parents or carers were incapacitated. She said: “Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance. And if the individuals do not have access to care support – formal care support – or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs.” Cummings did not have access to family support in London that he judged he could employ without putting them at risk of infection. However he was fortunate enough to have family members elsewhere, the younger members of which had volunteered to take that risk should it become necessary. So he drove to make use of that situation, knowing that he and his wife would be able to stay isolated in the process and that he would not need to burden the local authority hub, where a volunteer would have needed to come into contact with his child.
    Later on May 23 Dr. Harries also stated at the daily press briefing that any of the government lockdown guidance can be overruled by safeguarding concerns, or prevention of harm. She used the examples of an elderly person with no supply of medication, or a child with both parents too unwell to provide medical care. Arguably, then, in going into self-isolation near Durham, not in a second home but with relatives nearby, Cummings remained within the guidelines.
    Certainly his actions in this particular case do not appear to merit the simplistic and self-righteous judgment of much of the press and the media and now even of some bishops, including those for whom I normally have great respect! Hatred of Cummings has led to an inability to tolerate any interpretation of guidelines and instead the wish to treat them as absolutely clear rules that allow no interpretation for particular circumstances even when the guidelines themselves explicitly make such allowances. One might have hoped bishops might be skilled in seeking the truth and educating people in how to interpret and apply texts.”

    3.8 Additionally, it is for the prosecution to prove its case
    And they have to prove it to a standard, that is until the court(in this case) is sure, that an offence has been committed.

    4 As all of this rolls on, is any thought given to prayer, pray for (not against) Cummings and his family, for Johnson, the Cabinet, MP’s, Starmer, all those in opposition, the media, the church and last but perhaps most of all, how this reveals the heart of our own darkness, in our, thoughts words, writings, that can be so offensively odorous, stinking. Even our prayers will reveal our hearts, deceitful above all things, that truly reveals we are all in this together. Yes, we are, as our hearts condemn us , as we condemn, as we point the finger, pile on prejudice in our superiority over those on our side and against us.
    Where is this love, love our enemies, which otherwise oozes out of our every pore in unrestrained times, this largess of we lovelies.
    Our Lord is shining his light on our hearts of darkness, our true selves, the centre of our bottom line beliefs and faith, our motives, our deepest desires, of first order importanc and habits of heart, envy, superiority, hatred, which has been revealed both in the actors and first responders, commentators. Can we, do we want to be changed? Do we seek sanctification and it’s wise counsel- a supernatural work of God, indeed.

    5 What is wrong with the world? Iam.

    Hot off the press (1pm BBC News Thursday 28 ), Durham Police have said there was a minor breach by Cummings- visit to Barnard Castle, but not by driving to and from Durham, but there’d be no further action as there was no ris (of spread, I presume). However there was not consisentency even in this report, as the headline was that there “MAy have be en a breach” only for our man on the spot, to say that there “WAS a minor breach”.
    For someone who has both prosecuted and defended in courts, there is little doubt that the office of the DPP will have been consulted on such a high profile case.

    1. Two experienced dementia clinic doctors, both now retired, brought different personalities to bear on legal and ethical questions. One was a polymath and a pragmatist, with the common touch. The other had similar skills, but in addition was hugely into medical law and ethics as academic disciplines. They often disagreed in their approaches, but had a great friendship and regard for each other. One viewed ethics and law almost as a chess game. The other felt that common sense always needed to be king (or queen). Someone with a legal mind, or heavily into systematic theology, can construct any number of get out clauses for Dominic Cummings. But many human decisions need to be framed in their context. A government which has delayed lockdown, seen tens of thousands of deaths, and imposed restrictive lifestyle changes over weeks, needs to get its own house in order. It could be that there is some element of mob violence against Mr Cummings. It may also be that we are hardwired to have a conscience and live in a moral universe. When the fuses trip in many homes there has clearly been a major electrical fault in the grid. This describes what has happened, I believe. Dominic Cummings responses look good enough, as barrister brushstrokes on canvas, when the picture is out of the frame. When we see the picture in the frame, things may be very…very different, possibly?

      1. I think the fuses tripped in a lot of Remain homes because people didn’t like Dominic Cummings and were quick to jump on the story without knowing enough facts. Plus there was a lot of biased reporting. He was in a difficult situation with a child that may have special needs. I would have done the same as him, and so would this journalist.

        https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Jesus-said-Let-he-who-is-without-sin-cast-the-first-stone-.-That-s-why-I-won-t-judge-Dominic-Cummings

  8. One way Dominic and Boris could avoid the anger of the masses, is by saying sorry, and just resigning. With one projected figure of around 60 000 UK Covid deaths to date, the Lord Carrington option (from the time of the Falklands crisis) has much merit. The public anger on Dominic’s doorstep is ugly, but it may represent a palpable sense of betrayal some people in Britain feel-our economy wrecked, our NHS threatened, our freedoms restricted. If the UK death toll could have been halved, or quartered, or decimated, then Boris should go. The public anger is not without good justification.

  9. I find the leaders of our society deeply depressing and of course they are really only an expression of the zeitgeist of a whole culture. Babylon is ever ripening. Her end must soon come. Praise God for a King who will rule in righteousness and silence the voices of scoundrels and fools.

    Isa 32

    1 Behold, a king will reign in righteousness,
    and princes will rule in justice.
    2 Each will be like a hiding place from the wind,
    a shelter from the storm,
    like streams of water in a dry place,
    like the shade of a great rock in a weary land.
    3 Then the eyes of those who see will not be closed,
    and the ears of those who hear will give attention.
    4 The heart of the hasty will understand and know,
    and the tongue of the stammerers will hasten to speak distinctly.
    5 The fool will no more be called noble,
    nor the scoundrel said to be honorable.
    6 For the fool speaks folly,
    and his heart is busy with iniquity,
    to practice ungodliness,
    to utter error concerning the LORD,
    to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied,
    and to deprive the thirsty of drink.
    7 As for the scoundrel—his devices are evil;
    he plans wicked schemes
    to ruin the poor with lying words,
    even when the plea of the needy is right.
    8 But he who is noble plans noble things,
    and on noble things he stands.

  10. Thanks for these articles. Very helpful.

    I’ve heard it argued that because DC is a ‘Key Worker’ he was able to travel back to London. The real problem in all this (apart from mass hypocrisy) is that the MSM hate Boris, Brexit & DC (and Trump) – this drives everything. That’s how it seems to me anyway.

  11. A valuable though saddening article along with, as ever good comments. I wonder if you’ve seen this forwarded by my brother (I don’t know the source):

    A Minor Infringement

    How disappointed they must be,

    Those Bishops and the BBC!

    Some sense from an unlikely source,

    The Boys in Blue – the Durham Force:

    The journey to his parents’ farm

    Was reasonable and did no harm;

    That Castle jaunt (just out of reach)

    Did constitute a Minor Breach.

    They might indeed have turned him back,

    But cause for him to get the sack?

    Enough for those who deal in hate –

    The Beeb and the Episcopate.

  12. “Dominic Cummings: I do have a problem with him drawing up a rule saying you should not go back to work if you are ill until you have been cleared. He did not do so – and that is hypocrisy. You can’t have one rule for some and not for others.”

    Firstly, what rule is this? Secondly, I thought I heard him say that he’d received medical advice before he drove to Barnard Castle that he could go back to London, and to work, and that that was why he checked that he had the stamina to drive again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: