If you were annoyed at Dominic Cummings before

[NoMoreReluctantCustodians]

How has his performance in the rose garden affected your opinion?

YANBU it's made things worse
YABU its cleared things up for me

I feel sure it will get better @Isaidnomorecrisps, I think people are starting to look for something different and hopeful after a very toxic phase

SabrinaThwaite
Clavinova latest DAG tweet.

Yes, I see.

Cummings should consider himself lucky.

That's one lawyer's opinion of course - although with hindsight DAG might have put more emphasis on the confused wording of the police statement in his original tweet - you have described it as a "minor point" and "a footnote" - quite a major point of discussion now.

I watched the brexit film on Netflix last night. Main protagonist was Dom Cummings, not sure how accurate it was but was a very interesting insight into his personality and thought processes.

Ooh I didn't know there was such a thing Lousy, but that sounds like my sort of film. I watched Iron Lady last night, I like to keep up with current affairs

That's one lawyer's opinion of course - although with hindsight DAG might have put more emphasis on the confused wording of the police statement in his original tweet - you have described it as a "minor point" and "a footnote" - quite a major point of discussion now.

Because, as I said, in the original Tweet thread it was a minor point.

Plenty of legal Twitter (notjust DAG) have pointed out that police form an opinion, they don’t decide criminality, as that is the Court’s job, but that the Durham Police would have considered the Barney trip in breach of the regulations.

It was when people like Kuenssberg misinterpreted the statement in their Tweets that it took on more significance because the word “might” was seized to proclaim Cummings’ innocence.

Still waiting to see how Braverman gets herself out of this.

@Earnsomething is the Iron Lady on Netflix ? That sounds good. There was a series about her last year I think which was very revealing

It's Meryl Steep, a few years old now. I watched it on Prime but most things that are free on there are also on Netflix.

Thanks 👍

Plenty of legal Twitter (notjust DAG) have pointed out that police form an opinion, they don’t decide criminality, as that is the Court’s job

Jolyon Maugham tweeted this morning;

Jo Maugham QC -

"Baffling."

"The regulations positively require the police to act as judge and jury.They say an officer "may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone [she] reasonably believes...has committed an offence."

Another voice swimming against the tide - Adam Wagner, human rights barrister at Doughty Street Chambers/writes for The Times and The Guardian;

"My view all along is that he clearly breached the guidance, probably deliberately, and may or may not have broken the law-but that a prosecution was in any event unlikely."

They’re not swimming against the tide though - they’re both agreeing that Cummings broke the regulations and acted unlawfully (and the guidance, which is not enforceable by law).

If Cummings had been stopped and refused to comply with instructions then he may have been issued with a fine - if he had refused pay the fine then it goes to prosecution. Durham Police said in its statement that it didn’t fine other people in the same situation so wouldn’t be applying a retrospective penalty to Cummings.

Plus Adam Wagner commenting that FPN are intended for roadside use at the time, and not for use retrospectively when police officers were not at the scene:

I think the natural and (for Civil Liberties) safer interpretation of the regime is that when reports come after the event the police have to decide whether to prosecute or not, and leave it at that. And in that sense they are right that it is for a court to decide

"My view all along is that he clearly breached the guidance, probably deliberately, and may or may not have broken the law-but that a prosecution was in any event unlikely."

No argument from me on that at all -
he clearly breached the guidance, probably deliberately.

Yes he certainly did, by his OWN account.

A prosecution was unlikely

Err, yes. I didn't even hear people asking for a prosecution they are asking for Cummings to do the right thing and resign or Johnson to do the right thing and sack him.

Did the police in Durham do their job properly? They were aware that DC had travelled to a relatives/2nd home which was strictly forbidden at the time. I may be wrong but I thought the police position was to engage then enforce ie ask the person to go home and if they refused, issue the fine.

The police in durham have not done their job as far as I can see. They knew full well he.was there and that he shouldn't have been. Why is there not an investigation into why Durham police treated DC as a special case?

The police in durham have not done their job as far as I can see. They knew full well he.was there and that he shouldn't have been. Why is there not an investigation into why Durham police treated DC as a special case?

Desperate, much? You thought the police were going to nail Cummings, whereas they came back and said that if he did anything at all, it was so minor that there was no point in taking any action whatsoever!

Desperate, much? You thought the police were going to nail Cummings, whereas they came back and said that if he did anything at all, it was so minor that there was no point in taking any action whatsoever!

That's right dear, so they didn't do their job.

Yeah, because it’s just a “minor“ breach, eh @CendrillonSings ?

Except you do realise there isn’t actually such a thing as a “minor” breach? You either act lawfully or it’s unlawful.

Cummings acted unlawfully.

Totally agree @NoMoreReluctantCustodians he should have been talked to and asked to go back home then if he refused fined.

It seems like Durham police have made an exception for him.

The problem is the police didn’t catch him in the act with his Barney trip, hence the issues about trying to apply a fine retrospectively.

They’re not swimming against the tide though

I think they are - in different ways of course:

Jo Maugham QC
JolyonMaugham
"It's like a speeding fine. If the officer thinks you are speeding she can issue a ticket and you can pay it and take the points or - if you want to - you can contest it. But either way the police must form a view ("act as judge and jury") in issuing the ticket. Same here."

disagrees with your post -

"Plenty of legal Twitter (notjust DAG) have pointed out that police form an opinion, they don’t decide criminality, as that is the Court’s job."

Adam Wagner's tweet in my previous post includes; "may or may not have broken the law"

Also - Adam Wagner disagreeing with Jolyon Maugham this morning - one extract here;

Jo Maugham QC
JolyonMaugham
2h
Replying to
AdamWagner1

"I drove to Barnard Castle to test my eyesight? I'm genuinely surprised you think it plausible that might be a reasonable excuse. I think it's beyond sensible argument that it isn't."

AdamWagner1
Replying to
JolyonMaugham

"I disagree. I don’t think his explanation is barndoor obviously not a reasonable excuse. You may think it’s a lie, but that has to be tested, or you may think it’s absurd but police are right - open texture reasonable excuse test has simply not been litigated yet so we don’t know."

Desperate, much? You thought the police were going to nail Cummings, whereas they came back and said that if he did anything at all, it was so minor that there was no point in taking any action whatsoever!

Nope never thought it was down to the police. 

It's about a lying government, cabinet ministers undermining their own message and being willing to risk their entire credibility and a nations pandemic response.

Keep up @CendrillonSings

You might be giddy with joy about the man who helped construct the rules only making a "minor breach". But you probably believe the whole
" eye test " thing and the rest of the crock.

Like Gove. Did you see him justifying it. 😂😂😂😂😁😂

Hoe are your eyes?

How are you eyes @CendrillonSings ?

Do YOU drive to test them? 😂

I don’t think his explanation is barndoor obviously not a reasonable excuse

I'm afraid this is where the minutiae of the law departs from reality. Anyone with decent eyesight can see that his excuse is not just 'unreasonable' but a ludicrous and insulting lie.

@Clavinova

You ignored the Wagner comment didn’t you?
I think the natural and (for Civil Liberties) safer interpretation of the regime is that when reports come after the event the police have to decide whether to prosecute or not, and leave it at that. And in that sense they are right that it is for a court to decide

Hence Wagner saying to Maugham that the ridiculous Barney excuse should be tested in Court.

And it’s not really like a speeding fine, which is objective and not subject to the defence of reasonableness - which is subjective. Again we’re back to letting a Court decide what is a reasonable excuse, and not a police officer.

You could possibly argue that fox botherer Maugham is swimming against the tide, but definitely not Wagner.

And it’s not really like a speeding fine, which is objective and not subject to the defence of reasonableness - which is subjective. Again we’re back to letting a Court decide what is a reasonable excuse, and not a police officer.

In what fantasy world is Cummings going to face a court if the police have said they will take no action, the CPS has taken no action, and the Attorney General doesn’t think anything should be done either?

@CendrillonSings

You’re really not following this at all, are you?

Maybe stick to emojis.