Dominic Cummings: Media feeding psychosis?

 

You could be forgiven for believing that there is something extremely wrong in this man's head. What is even worse is that this man is being made a number one item on the news by none other than the BBC. The language is changing and is changing for the worse. Dominic Cummings is talking about killing and killing in whichever context that you put such word is not reassuring.

He was fired and one can understand that he was very disgruntled having lost his post as adviser to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but this has reached levels of obsession or even psychosis. It has come the time when he will say whatever comes to his mind, no matter how outrageous or how dangerous or both it might be.

If he is looking to gain some political favours for attacking the British Prime Minister those who could potentially employ this man must be aware of the fact that if enraged he could turn against them. It could be the equivalent of the King seeking to employ Macbeth as adviser.

Dominic Cummings: Whistleblower or Spiteful man seeking revenge no matter what?

 

For months on end, the Opposition targetted Dominic Cummings identifying him as the source of all evil in the British government. Mr. Cummings was pictured and depicted in the most negative manner, harassed by journalists and lots of ink was spread about him being the worst of the worst. They even laughed when he presumably was infected with Covid-19.

Months passed and one day Dominic Cummings was fired by the Conservative goverment. The Opposition celebrated. Finally, they had got their man and he was out of government. Such an evil influence he had been! Now, months later after he was fired, he has now been made the centre of attention because he is saying exactly what the Opposition wants him to say to attack the Conservative government.

But wait a minute! Mr. Cummings is saying that he knew that lives were being put at risk and chose to stay in government, keeping his mouth shut while thousands were dying? So here comes the fact. If what he says is true, then Mr Cummings is guilty as hell for being part of a lethal cover up and criminal charges should be raised against him for being an accomplice of serious crimes. He says that he knew that lives were being put in danger and chose to remain silent until when? Until he was fired. Only months after he was fired he calculated that it was then the time to talk and reveal all. This stinks as the cold blooded maneuvers of a political manipulator that knows which buttons to press to get things his way.

The Opposition has been a disgrace, failing to carry out proper opposition, focusing on scandals instead of promoting viable alternatives and now the Opposition - once again - is not offering the kind of choices that ordinary voters want to hear about. What is the reality of it all? Britain is coming out of Lockdown. The economy is starting to pick up speed and moving in the right direction. The country is once again open for business and business is what Britain is about. 

Do I trust the present Opposition? The previous Shadow Cabinet was a shambles with various examples of sheer incompetence and then came yet another reshuffle very much like a game of chairs. The grass roots of the Labour Party, elected representatives of the Labour Party, are publicly saying that they don't know what the Labour Party stands for, that they don't have a clue about what the Labour Party stands for. People were joking about the demotion of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party that was given so many attributions as compensation for her demotion that she might have become a risk for the Labour Party Leader Keir Starmer.

Things are so bad, the Labour MPs who are still loyal to the previous Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn even with that the Labour Party does badly in the Batley and Spen by-election due to take place in July as a way to get rid of Keir Starmer. Is using what Mr Cummings is saying - regardless of it being true or false - a way to divert attention from the miserable state the Opposition is in?

The disconnect between the Labour Party and its supporters is plainly obvious. In Batley and Spen, a community with a vast presence of people of Pakistani and Indian descent (16.9% Pakistani and 15.9% Indian) where Labour has had a majority since 1997, 60% per cent of voters voted for Brexit. The London centric Labour Party seems to be ignoring the will of its supporters all along. They ignored the will of voters in Hartlepool and were routed by the Conservative Party. Wil they seek to ignore the will of voters once again in Batley and Spen? 

I understand why the Opposition is trying to find some alternative narrative to motivate voters to come out and vote for them. If Kim Leadbeater really want to win the seat in Batley and Spen she might be well advised to put some distance between herself and the Parliamentary Labour Party, between herself and the leadership of the Labour Party, and to choose to fight the election on purely local issues. Keir Starmer position on geopolitical issues might not carry the favour of people who are predominantly Muslim. Some die-hard Remain stances might not be very favourable either. 

 

Dominic Cummings Vs Parliament and the issue of Contempt of Parliament

Dominic Cummings Vs Parliament and the issue of Contempt of Parliament

https://dominiccummings.com/2019/03/27/on-the-referendum-24n-actions-have-consequences/

Dominic Cummings - Vote Leave

What are the rights of Parliament and what are the rights of private citizens with regards to Parliament?

The issue came to the fore today when during a Privileges Motion Debate the matter was discussed that a private citizen when invited to attend a hearing of a Select Committee could find himself declared to be in contempt if he or she either refuses to answer questions or simply refuses to attend.


At the moment, Parliament can issue an admonition - criticising or condemning the refusal to answer questions or to attend such hearings. But there is a vested interest to go a lot farther than that and there is a suggestion that punitive measures could be adopted that could even involve the Judiciary.
The vested interest is that in this particular case we are talking about Brexit and that those who are directly opposed to Brexit would undoubtedly seek to demonise, misrepresent or damage the interests or persona of the individual they declare to be in contempt of Parliament.

There is such animosity that this particular situation could be used to transform the Legislative into Judge, Jury and Executioner of a private individual, animosity that could lead to the introduction of legal measures that could be detrimental for individual basic rights.

Whether people respect Parliament or don't respect Parliament, whether people like Parliament or dislike Parliament is not something that should be made into Law when it comes to political decisions taken by Parliament.

Quite a few people very much dislike the present Parliament and say so openly. Quite a few people don't trust Parliament and say so openly. Are they in contempt of Parliament? If somebody doesn't want to allow himself or herself to be used by Parliament in a way that is detrimental for the rights of the individual, is the individual entitled to protect his or her rights? Of will the individual become a hostage of Parliament and forced to act against himself or herself?

As it was well noted, in the United States of America citizens are entitled to refuse to answer because answers that they might provide would incriminate them. Are political interest being put before the right of the individual? Is Parliament trying to become a sort of Inquisition?

We haven't seen the legislation proposed because it was suggested that Members of Parliament involved in the promotion of punitive measures should think very carefully about what punitive measures would be proposed.

At the moment, there is no legal obligation to attend any committee hearings. Attendance is voluntary and so is the process of answering questions. Having said that, if somebody were to give evidence or answer questions under Oath there are legal implications including charges for Perjury if somebody were to state or declare or answer questions untruthfully.

The case involving Parliament and Dominic Cummings is not merely about respecting or not respecting Parliament. This is a political issue and especially when Parliament doesn't seem to come together to decide on very important matters. When we are in principle less than two weeks away from exiting the European Union, to bring such a case for consideration on the floor of the House of Commons is, as stated before, far from being merely a legal matter. This is a clear and self-evident process pushed forward with a visible political intention.