Blogger policy on comment moderation
I turned off comment moderation on this blog many moons ago, with the result that if a comment on a recent post does not get interpreted by blogger's systems as SPAM, it appears almost immediately and stays up unless it falls foul of one of the criteria which I do occasionally revisit and publish - don't attack the dead in an obit post, don't put up anything which might expose me (or blogger, or the author) to legal action, don't put up anything I consider highly offensive or insulting.
However, comments on a post which is more than a few weeks old do go into the "Awaiting comment moderation" folder.
Because this only affects a small minority of posts I probably don't check it as often as I should, and there can be a delay before I notice them, and either publish or delete them depending on whether they are still relevant or have been made out of date (for example, because the author has posted them somewhere else.
I notice that three comments went into that folder in the past fortnight or so. One was on West Cumbria mining, and I belatedly published it, as well as a post on the subject on which there has been further debate.
The other two were asking me to comment on the Dominic Cummings situation.
I have in fact already said something about that in response to comments on yesterday's Lockdown diary. I will repeat it here.
I am reluctant to say much about this issue because I do not pretend to know the full facts.
It is essential that there is, and is seen to be, one law for everyone and nobody who is above the rules.
If I thought, however, when I listened to Mr Cummings' explanation for what he did that this was a person who thought that the rules did not apply to him, I would consider that this would have made his position untenable.
If there is not seen to be one law and set of rules for everyone, then otherwise the rules will not be respected and obeyed - and that will result in avoidable deaths.
I understand Durham police have released a statement to the effect that they have investigated the matter and that DC's decision to self-isolate himself and his wife and child on an isolated cottage on his father's farm, maintaining social distancing, was not in fact a breach of the rules.
However, comments on a post which is more than a few weeks old do go into the "Awaiting comment moderation" folder.
Because this only affects a small minority of posts I probably don't check it as often as I should, and there can be a delay before I notice them, and either publish or delete them depending on whether they are still relevant or have been made out of date (for example, because the author has posted them somewhere else.
I notice that three comments went into that folder in the past fortnight or so. One was on West Cumbria mining, and I belatedly published it, as well as a post on the subject on which there has been further debate.
The other two were asking me to comment on the Dominic Cummings situation.
I have in fact already said something about that in response to comments on yesterday's Lockdown diary. I will repeat it here.
I am reluctant to say much about this issue because I do not pretend to know the full facts.
It is essential that there is, and is seen to be, one law for everyone and nobody who is above the rules.
If I thought, however, when I listened to Mr Cummings' explanation for what he did that this was a person who thought that the rules did not apply to him, I would consider that this would have made his position untenable.
If there is not seen to be one law and set of rules for everyone, then otherwise the rules will not be respected and obeyed - and that will result in avoidable deaths.
I understand Durham police have released a statement to the effect that they have investigated the matter and that DC's decision to self-isolate himself and his wife and child on an isolated cottage on his father's farm, maintaining social distancing, was not in fact a breach of the rules.
Comments
Do you think Cummings acted responsibly throughout this whole sorry episode? Do you think he was being truthful about the reason for his trip to Barnard Castle? If there's even a chance he might be as monumentally foolish about more important matters as he allegedly was about his driving and eyesight choices, isn't he a massive danger to us all? Do you feel there are any questions left unanswered by his claims in the rose garden? Why do you claim it was his father's farm? His name is on the title deeds - he actually went to his second home, which is a breach of the rules.
With more than one million signatures on a petition to sack him, and counting, do you think the distraction and damage this has caused means he should now depart - even if his actions have been as pure as the driven snow? Or is he so important that that damage (and more to come) is worth it?
I note that Durham police - who presumably do know more of the facts than you or I - say that after investigating the full circumstances they consider his choosing the isolated cottage in Durham rather than his London home to self-isolate was within the rules.
They police did criticise the Barnard Castle trip as a "minor breach" on which they are not going to take retrospective action because that really would be treating him differently from the rest of the population. I don't see that as a sacking offence though given the police statement it would probably be helpful, to make the point that there is not one rule for some and a different rule for others, if he were to apologise for it.
He's an advisor, not a minister. Advisors may advise but it is ministers who are accountable to parliament and the electorate. The PM must decide how much he values the advice of any particular minister or advisor. The electorate can and will judge the PM if he gets too far out of line with their wishes
I see you put in a comment, which went into the moderation box because of the age of the post concerned, on one of my April 2016 posts in which I was quoting some fairly savage criticisms of Dominic Cummings' role in Vote Leave.
I thought those criticisms were entirely justified when I quoted them in 2016 and I still think they were justified except that, to my surprise and disgust, the tactics which I thought were self-defeating as well as wrong and misleading actually worked.
What I won't do is judge and condemn or justify a man's actions in 2020 when I don't know the full facts because I strongly disapprove of his tactics in 2016.
I think some of those who are trying to get DC sacked are genuinely concerned that he may have undermined the lockdown, and that is a legitimate point of view. If I were to come to the opinion that they are right in that assessment I too would call on the PM to dispense with his services.
But I also have the strong impression that some of those who are calling for his head are motivated primarily because they want revenge for 2016 and there is nothing that will satisfy them short of his head on a pike. Some of the lynch mob mentality on display has been concerning and I want no part in it.
You say you don't claim to know what was going on in his head. But you readily form the "strong impression" that some of his critics are seeking revenge, that they have a lynch mob mentality, that they want his head on a pike - how very even-handed of you.
Chris, when I started to correspond with you, my impression was that you were a thoughtful, considerate person who offered me an insight into the thought processes of Cumbrian Tories. I now believe I was wrong. You now appear to be willing to withhold judgement on a dangerous fool, because your clown of a leader, who is incapable of operating without him, tells you to.
The position you take on this matter is beneath contempt, and an insult to the many millions who have done their duty and obeyed the rules, while the shameless elitist who drafted them openly derides us.
Shame on you.
If you really think that being filmed socialising in a garden with members of your family at a second home, or having an assignation with another man's wife, are "much lesser infractions" than a drive from Durham to Barnard Castle during which social distancing was observed, then you have allowed your anger at DC's past actions to rob you of any ability to form a balanced judgement. (The police assessment was that the trip to Durham was not a breach of the rules and it involved no socialising with the rest of the family.)
And I may be wrong, but I have the impression that the people who resigned for those infractions appear to have been far more closely associated with the drafting of the regulations which they clearly did break than Mr Cummings was. Both had certainly argued in public for the regulations they broke.
You say, Paul. that you have changed your mind about me - I sadly, have had to change mine about you.
I once thought you were an intelligent and fair minded person. The man I thought you were when I formed that opinion would not have been capable of writing the above childish and gratuitously insulting post.
You recently wrote on Twitter that you do not read my tweets or visit my blog often for health reasons, e.g. blood pressure.
If you are not capable of writing anything more constructive than accusing me of being beneath contempt because I choose not to see things the way you do then, although I will not feed your ego by banning or blocking you, I suggest it might be better for both your health and mine if you do not visit at all.
You're not on the moral high ground here, Chris - pretending to be so is pretty pathetic.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/online/videos/19999/corona-corona-corona-a-booty-call/
I explained that I was reluctant to comment because I don't claim to be certain about the facts.
And every time either Gary or Paul casts doubt on something I have repeated in good faith which you don't think is correct you don't weaken that argument, you reinforce it.
Not for the first time, Paul is indulging in false statements about what I wrote which can be disproved but looking a couple of posts above and reading what I actually wrote.
Far from claiming to know the motives of Dominic Cummings' critics and "slagging them off with abandon" I gave two possible reasons why people might want him out, referred to one of them as "a legitimate point of view" and and accepted that if I came to agree with that analysis I wold want him out too.
I stand by the view that I have the strong impression that some people want him out because they have not forgiven him for the events of 2016 - and anyone who thinks that is an unreasonable opinion could win a Gold medal were ignoring what they don't want to see an Olympic sport.
The fact that she was someone else's wife meant she lived in another household where at least one other person lived and was presumably at least potentially put at risk, which is why the meeting was a breach of the social distancing rules in force at that time. Rules of which the individual who resigned appears to have had at least as much influence in drafting as DC, and of which he had been a public advocate. that is why he resigned.
Hence my comment was a reference to the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic situation, and the seriousness of the breach, which is what the argument was about, not a reference to Victorian values.
If I were relying on gut feeling rather than any powers of forensic English or logic that I might have I'd say that Dom's baseline intention was simply to get his wife and child out of London at the first opportunity, which for him was that weekend. Sadly for him the Regulations were enacted the day before he was able to get away; at a date and time set to allow MPs to leave the place where they were living and head for home. He said he was planning to come back to work but, even sadder, he couldn't when he fell ill. This caused him to have to find an excuse that passed muster with his line manager and the Police and he came up with two (childcare and escape from harm). We've heard from Durham that at least one is reasonable but they are not saying which one it was. It would therefore be quite nice to hear from the Met too, since it happened on their manor.
I wanted to join the EEC and leave the EU btw. Still do.
Although many people have concluded that Durham Constabulary have conducted an enquiry into the whole of the Cummings's activities, they have in fact only investigated activities that took place in County Durham. Clearly the possible offence of leaving the place where he lives in London is a matter only for the Met as far as Durham Constabulary are concerned. His taking up living at his North Lodge property may have been a breach of guidance on moving to second homes but it was not an offence under the Regulations.
As I say, I'm sorry for my mistake.