Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex Atkin UK]

I do, personally, think that impartiality remains important for BBC.  To best of my knowledge, it remains law that the BBC must be impartial.

The problem is how that is interpreted.

As we mentioned, when its proven fact that 5G is safe, they shouldn't need to get a conspiracy theorist on to say its not, to be impartial.

There has to be a line drawn between opinion (requiring impartiality) and fact (which does not).

[busterboy]

i can guarantee that some those that are "baying for blood" have breached the lockdown rules at some point. but because no-one knows or cares about them it goes under the radar.

Spot on 100%

Absolute hypocrites IMO.

[chenks]

being impartial doesn't mean neutering opinion though. they just have to remain balanced.
if the host isn't allowed to have voice (or even have) an opinion then why bother employing them. simply replacing them with a computer that churns out benine questions and waits for the response.

and the problem with BBC and impartiality is that, i would bet, that almost no-one thinks it is. everyone tends to believe that the BBC is against their own particular viewpoint.
the BBC in scotland is a prime example, nationalists think the BBC is anti-SNP, and unionists think the BBC is pro-unionist (and vice versa). rangers supporters think the BBC is anti-rangers, and celtic supporters think it is pro-rangers (and vice versa).

[sevenlayermuddle]

Expressing an opinion is fine, providing it is clearly an opinion.   Much of the BBC’s climate coverage is based on scientific opinion.  They can also be express it as news providing they precede it with something like “scientists believe” .  And providing they have evidence that there is a credible majority of qualified scientists who believe it, they don’t need to switch to some other idiot to argue that the earth is flat.

But stating a substantially unfounded opinion as fact is a different matter.

She said the "public mood" was "one of fury, contempt and anguish", and that Cummings had made people who struggled to keep to the government's rules "feel like fools".

I am a member of the public and I know many other members of the public.  None of those I knew shared that opinion.  Some others clearly did think that way, but it falls far short of ‘fact’.

Spot on 100%

Absolute hypocrites IMO.

The one angle I don’t get is why they think, even if it were all true at face value, that it would have threatened public observation of lockdown.  I saw lots of people flouting lockdown rules, it certainly didn’t make me feel tempted to join them.  And I think people of that ilk would have behaved that way regardless, with or without a public scapegoat.

What might threaten observations of subsequent lockdowns (which are, I think, expected) is the BBC mantra resounding in our subconscious ... “it’s ok to ignore as long as you can blame it on a public figure”.

[sevenlayermuddle]

They’re still at it, I am truly amazed.

Durham Police have released a statement which is in the public domain...

https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-events/Pages/News%20Articles/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement--.aspx

It begins

​On 27 March 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.
...

It goes to say that in the drive to Barnard Castle there might have been a minor breach that might have resulted in ‘advice’.   That’s fair enough, in fact I confess that the only time I left the village during lockdown was to  take my own car for a drive, just once, about 15 miles, to charge up the battery and loosen off the brake callipers etc.  I suspected that drive could be challenged, and was prepared to accept advice if it was.

Somehow, the BBC have twisted the Police statement into a headline for the current lead article...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52835982

Dominic Cummings 'might have broken lockdown rules' - police

[jelv]

Unbelievable - the Government is now using OUR money to pay the Daily Mail to publish pro-government pieces about how well it is handling COVID-19.

Link to the article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8340593/How-Covid-19-pandemic-threatened-businesses-Government-helping-them.html

Bet the BBC have said nothing about that!

[jelv]

They’re still at it, I am truly amazed.

Durham Police have released a statement which is in the public domain...

https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-events/Pages/News%20Articles/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement--.aspx

It begins
It goes to say that in the drive to Barnard Castle there might have been a minor breach that might have resulted in ‘advice’.   That’s fair enough, in fact I confess that the only time I left the village during lockdown was to  take my own car for a drive, just once, about 15 miles, to charge up the battery and loosen off the brake callipers etc.  I suspected that drive could be challenged, and was prepared to accept advice if it was.

Somehow, the BBC have twisted the Police statement into a headline for the current lead article...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52835982

So who is trying to twist things now? The headline is 100% accurate. To quote the police press statement (my bold):

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

So how do think the headline "Dominic Cummings 'might have broken lockdown rules' - police" inaccurate?

[chenks]

i think it's very clear that someone in this thread has an agenda!

[busterboy]

i think it's very clear that someone in this thread has an agenda!

Oh you noticed as-well..

[Alex Atkin UK]

The problem is, if it was an offence or not shouldn't be the primary aim here.  If it was selfish and endangered other people is what should be relevant and I think its pretty hard to argue that it wasn't and didn't.  He was thinking about what was easiest for himself, not the safety of others.

There is research to suggest that driving while sick is as dangerous as drunk driving.  Sticking a young child in a small poorly ventilated tin can with people who may have the virus in itself is moronic, they are more likely to get a higher concentration of the virus and thus far more risky than staying in a house.  Those things alone should be grounds for firing him as clearly he has pretty atrocious judgement so shouldn't be advising anyone.

[sevenlayermuddle]

Sorry Alex are you referring to the trip to Durham to self-isolate near his parents, the second alleged trip to Durham of which Police could find no evidence, or the drive to Barnard Castle?

I have not seen any evidence, aside from BBC rants, that on any of these trips were undertaken when he was feeling so unwell as to affect his driving.  Do you have a (respectable) link I could follow?

Regarding eyesight, if he was worried that his vision was sub optimal for driving, providing it was well above the legal minimum, I’d say (Covid rules aside) it was a responsible thing to put it to the test under relaxed conditions.    I had to reject a new pair of glasses last year, as they didn’t work well for driving.  The only way to ‘prove’ it was to allow the optician to make tweaks to how they fitted, then try them out for a few days, whilst driving around.  At all times my vision was vastly superior to the legal minimum, but I still wanted better, and eventually got it - replacements are fantastic.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Sorry Alex are you referring to the trip to Durham to self-isolate near his parents, the second alleged trip to Durham of which Police could find no evidence, or the drive to Barnard Castle?

The initial drive regarding locking the kid in a situation where they are more likely to get infected.

The shorter drive:

On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

You shouldn't be driving to test if your eyesight is okay for driving, if you have any doubts you shouldn't be driving period.

I'd also question, if his job is advisor, why does he need to physically be there in the first place?  Surely you can advise from home?  By his own advise, only go out if you absolutely need to.

If you can't follow your own advise, then maybe you shouldn't be an advisor to begin with!

[sevenlayermuddle]

It is very easy to establish whether your eyesight meets basic driving standards by pacing out distance stipulated in the legislation and trying to read a number plate. That’s 20 metres for a modern number plate.  There’s more detailed requirements too, that only an optician can test, but I don’t think it is practical to say anybody who has had Covid 19 needs to consult an optician before driving again.

But it’s also wise to tread cautiously, with extra precautions, even if you have tested as above. As in my own example of new glasses, I always put them to the test with a short drive around local roads before committing to a long motorway drive.  That appears to be all Cummings did, except he was confirming his eyes had fully recovered, rather than testing new glasses.

Another scenario was following abdominal surgery some years ago.  The surgeon had given me the all clear to drive again, and I actually wanted to drive to Scotland, so I tried a short drive first.  It was still uncomfortable, so I deferred the Scotland drive for another month.

Cummings was quite likely being a lot more responsible than most people, who would undoubtably have jumped in the car and driven straight to London with no attempt at all to confirm fitness.

[jelv]

IF, and that's a IF, the purpose of the drive was to test your eyesight, you don't need to take your family with you, and you don't need to stop off and wander around. You do a short "round the block" first and if that is OK you do a longer round trip. It is not necessary to go "to" somewhere and, especially in the circumstances at the time, you don't stop off anywhere. It's absolutely 110% clear they thought lets go out for a bit before we head back to London and the eyesight test is just a feeble excuse.

It's just typical of this unspeakable mob that are in charge, one lie after another to get what they want or get out of a situation, and if they are caught out they double down on them. The difference between them and Trump is frighteningly small.

I quite frankly blame Labour for the current situation, if they hadn't been so totally and utterly useless for the last few years, we wouldn't have this lot in power!

[sevenlayermuddle]

It’s a great idea to take somebody along with you if you are confirming your own fitness to drive.

In the unlikely event you find yourself thinking that the test drive was a bad idea, you may be able ask your passenger to drive back, if they are licensed and insured

If checking eyesight, you can ask your passenger(s) to read the road signs as early as they can at the longest distance, and compare that with your own abilities.  I do that quite regularly in fact, it can be interesting as it lets you know your own real-world strengths and weaknesses in different lighting, even if an optician has recently assured you that your eyesight is 20/20 or better.