For someone with such a colossal intellect, Dominic Cummings, chief polecat to alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, does some pretty dumb things. His latest descent from dumb to dumber came yesterday during a case being heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh before Lord Pentland - the case over which the Sun’s non-bullying political editor Tom Newton Dunn made such an idiot of himself on live TV.
As the BBC has reported, “The UK government ‘can't be trusted’ to comply with the law aimed at avoiding a no-deal Brexit, Scotland's highest civil court has been told. The Court of Session is being asked to spell out what sanctions would apply if ministers fail to comply with the so-called Benn Act”. This was despite Bozo’s apparent promise to comply.
“Documents confirmed Boris Johnson would write a letter seeking a Brexit delay if a deal is not agreed by 19 October. But the petitioners said this was contradicted by other statements”. How this happened shows just how little attention Polecat Dom pays to actually engaging brain before shooting off his North And South.
Andrew Webster QC, for the Government, argued that giving an actual undertaking to the court was not necessary. Lord Pentland seemed unimpressed. Perhaps he had taken on board what Aidan O’Neill QC, for the petitioners, had said about the PM: “He thinks he is an honest man sent by God to lie to foreigners, he is not an honest man and isn't just lying to foreigners … His self deception exceeds his ability to deceive others”.
But then, during the afternoon, came news of a statement from A Senior Downing Street Source, otherwise known as Polecat Dom. The Benn Act “only imposes a very specific narrow duty concerning Parliament's letter requesting a delay … The government is not prevented by the Act from doing other things that cause no delay, including other communications, private and public”. How clever is that? Well, not very clever at all.
Because the news was then relayed to the Court of Session, where O’Neill asked the Judge for a few minutes to respond. Quoting the source as reported by the BBC, he concluded that “We are getting an undercutting of the government's statements … It is peculiar and frustrating”. This, he declared, was why an order was needed from the court.
Explaining to the Judge that the Government has already floated the idea of sending two letters - one asking for an Article 50 extension, and another saying they don’t mean it - as well as the suggestion of having another EU member state veto the extension, O’Neill said that Webster had not addressed this, and stressing “we need a coercive order from this court … [We] can’t reply on broad general words”.
Once again, Dominic Cummings has tried to be cleverer than everyone else put together, and once again has shown that claims of his gigantic intellect may be somewhat wide of the mark. Because he’s effectively undermined his own Government’s position.
He may have just made sure an October Brexit doesn’t happen. What a complete clown.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
"...colossal intellect..." my arse.
ReplyDeleteCummings is a mere reactionary lying bullshitter hiding away from public exposure.
A reasonably clued-up freshman would run rings around him. Which is why he skulks in the Downing Street bunker. An unchlorinated chicken.
He got luck with Leave. He hit upon the idea that a school leaver entering Marketing for a career could have thought up. Go to a few pubs and ask idiots what they want, what they really really want. It doesn't take a superior intellect to come up with that. Ah, but now he's playing with the Big Boys. You know, experienced politicians and the whole of he British senior judiciary. Apparently, he's a relentless blurter of Truths himself, oops, there's a huge potential for sabotage right there and he's already started. And, word is, invited to Cabinet meetings, he was like a small kid, constantly asking Why? or Why not?
ReplyDelete