Wes Tender

Your instincts are incredible. You'll also have kept your children (if you have any) away from any paedophiles, capable as you are of identifying them only from looking at them.

It will be like being savaged by a dead sheep to borrow from Dennis Healey.

And Campbell accuses Cummings and his wife as being in the top 1% of earners in the country. Yes, they're right up there with the Kinnocks, father and son, and probably Campbell himself. But what is most amusing is his line “It is all of a piece with the arrogance and elitism of these people who won power by pretending to be on the side of the people against some sort of elite.” Surely that used to be the role of the Labour Party. How things have changed.

You've got a second home in Devon, Gavyn. I take it you've all stayed in London since the lockdown?

Read the post above. Feel free to publish a link to any evidence that the Party have whipped MPs not to express their opinions on this.

Of course I've heard of the whip. It's used when it comes to how MPs should vote along Party lines on policy matters, not on things like this. Are you suggesting that all Tory MPs have been whipped that they shouldn't express any opinions on a Party advisor's behaviour? That really would be political dynamite if it got out, so I presume that you think that they are all too scared of expressing an opinion because they might be in trouble with the Whips' office. I think that's a pretty feeble explanation.

Wow! One whole Tory MP. Has the BBC put in on the News yet that there is widespread support from within the party for Cummings to be sacked

As I said earlier, this will all blow over in a week or two. Make the most of it while you can all you lefties, until some other little incident crops up so that you can adopt a stance of faux outrage about how nasty/evil/hypocritical/uncaring the government and its adherents all are. But the Tories don't have a monopoly on stuff like this, as Kinnock proved, so it also won't be long until there is something for the right wing media to feast on. In the meantime, looking at the larger picture, the government have a massive majority, there is a long time until the next election, so regardless of the odd hiccup from time to time, nothing much will change.

He isn't a minister, or even an MP, he isn't elected, as you pointed out. If a policy goes wrong, who gets the flak? Him for advising on the policy, or the PM, Party, or the Minister responsible for the department running the policy? He advises, the cabinet decides whether to follow that advice or not when formulating government policy. He might be the main advisor, but it isn't that he is even the only one, he is one of many. Do try and get some perspective.

Go on then, send me a photo of you and I'll use my worst prejudices to label you as some sort of undesirable paedophile/terrorist/psychopath based purely on your physical appearance and what you are wearing.

I am aware of the status of the two individuals. I am also aware that you naturally will attempt to take some sort of moral stance that you would not take were the circumstances the other way around. I would argue the moral position between Kinnock and Cummings the other way around, that Kinnock had more responsibility to his electorate than Cummings had as a mere advisor to the Government. If one were to resign, then so should the other, if one doesn't then neither should the other.

I suspect that both sets of grandparents were equally at risk. I don't know the personal circumstances of whether Cummings pressed his parents to help look after the child, or whether it was them who persuaded him that it would be a good idea. One can weigh up the circumstances and arrive at one's own opinion, but on the face of it, it would have been quite simple for Kinnock to have video messaged Neil and sang happy birthday, wouldn't it? I agree that both actions were stupid and should be dealt with in the same way as each other.

But they can't, can they? Or at least the point is that the policy was that they shouldn't have.

Call me a cynic, but this will have blown over in a few weeks. But the implied suggestion also is that somehow there are not any other advisors anywhere in the UK who could do the same job as Cummings. I'm sure that there are.

And I said that he was wrong. But also the ruling was that elderly parents should not be visited without good reason. But as both actions were wrong, I merely asked which of the two was more excusable on grounds of compassion.

Red Army Are you a fan of eugenics? Do you have children? What makes you think that you should have them, but not him? These two comments are despicable. What does a child molester look like? Please do send photos of you two and we can then make suggestions of the various characteristics of your dress and appearance and categorise you into undesirables of one sort or another.

Weston's point seems to have gone right over your head, which isn't an unusual occurrence. It wasn't about whether there was any difference between the three examples he mentioned, it was a comparison between the different implications on their careers for the same misdemeanour. Personally I think that it was wrong that Cummings didn't observe the pandemic rules that he probably paid a part in forming, and accusations that it was a case of don't do as I do, do as I say are reasonable. But let's not have this cant about him, when Kinnock did the same thing. If you're so keen on comparisons between him and Cummings, which was the action more excusable on the grounds for the reason for it? Going to wish your elderly father a happy birthday, or taking your young child to be looked after by its grandparents? Of course Kinnock cannot be sacked in the same way that a footballer or political advisor can. He could be deselected for a criminal act, but of course we are not talking about anything close to that. But he could resign, in the same way that many lefties claim Cummings should.

This would be the same guy who as shadow Brexit Minister, produced the policy on Brexit for his Party that lost them the last election, because the electorate either couldn't understand Labour's position on Brexit, or thought that it was a joke

I don't deny that I am partisan in my support. What would be nice, is if you had the humility to admit that you are too. And I do know the meaning of the word objective. Do you know the meaning of the word "patronising"?

Naturally I wouldn't expect you to be objective, and you didn't disappoint.

When all the non-Tories on here were wetting themselves at how well Starmer had fared against Boris during the past couple of PM's Questions, it ought to be pointed out that Starmer's run came to an abrupt halt on Wednesday. Most consider him to have been robotic instead of forensic, and he was constantly wrong-footed by Boris. Perhaps Boris has prepared himself better for the challenge at last. Starmer just had the appearance of somebody who had prepared a set of questions, but did not have the ability to think fast on his feet when he got unexpected responses.

I've given you several hours to consider your best estimate of the time, but you're still not capable of giving one. As for the second question, I see that you've left it unanswered too. If you have no ability to discern the physical characteristics of posters, then maybe a good idea to stop pretending that you have.

Perhaps Coogan ought to consider as a socialist millionaire, that the money being paid by taxpayers towards his gardener and housekeeper, will eventually largely come out of funds available to pay for public services, unless it is paid for out of increased taxation. Personally, were I as wealthy as Coogan, in the same situation I would continue to employ the two of them, regardless of whether they actually did the work until the virus was over. But then I'm not a socialist luvvie.

Blimey, this is a first. Gavyn unable to answer a simple question inviting his opinion on what constitutes "a long lag" in days/weeks, when he spoke of that in a post. And he still hasn't enlightened us on how he is able to discern the physical attributes of anonymous posters on here either.

So how exactly do you determine the size of posters one here without any evidence to support your assumptions, Gavyn?