View Delta

 The evidence that Dominic Cummings returned to Durham the week after Easter  includes the following: Firstly, he was seen by several  independent witnesses walking in the woods that weekend. Secondly, his “evidence” of being in London is demonstrably insufficiently robust to withstand scrutiny by anyone except a gullible Prime Minister; (it may, for example, simply be evidence  that one of his mobile phones was in London that weekend ). Thirdly, the entire Barnard Castle eye-drive test charade makes no sense if his wife was available to drive South on Easter Monday. Fourthly, he sought to convince us that he drove North feeling that his London home was unsafe for his wife and child to be alone there; why then would he bring them back to that unsafe environment? But if he had had a week there to observe that the “unsafe” claim was  nonsense, of course he might drive back to Durham to collect them. Fifthly, his wife Mary Wakefield wrote in the Spectator that she emerged from Lo

  Who this post is for.   I have Christians particularly in mind when I write, because I am troubled and perplexed by those Christians who support obviously deceitful politicians. Of course, many other groups with beliefs (theistic or atheistic) and with moral principles may well find that the principles of this blogpost apply to their beliefs too, and I welcome that. So this post is for people with morals. Dictators, benevolent or otherwise, look away now.   Summary If a politician typically tells the truth, then they can at least be trusted; you may or may not agree with their policies but you can be reasonably confident of what they will try to do. If a politician habitually lies, then I assume they are working for their own interests, not mine. So, if you read no further, my point is that if you believe in Truth – for example because of a Christian belief -   then I do not see how you can support a candidate for whom Truth is unimportant, and I feel you must look a

  As honesty steadily rots I think if you join the dots You’ll see them Complaining, From future – Abstaining; This Government’s tied up in “NOT”s   Negative motivation tends not to be productive. Positive motivation inspires and rewards – and as you get closer to the goal the results of that journey become apparent and provide positive feedback. Negative motivation on the other hand can be unproductive – “I want to NOT do this” (e.g. eat that extra chocolate, have that further drink”. We have seen over four years the biggest negative campaign in history. Leave united over what they did NOT want -   unelected   bureaucrats, laws imposed on the UK by “Brussels”. immigration from the EU. There was no unity over anything else, which is why those who supported Leave could never agree what Brexit was. Over 4 years possible Brexits have been met with “We do NOT want that”. Single Market, Customs Union. The Chequers Deal. A border in the Irish Sea. The Theresa May Deal taken

  I WRITE TO SAVE LIVES In response to criticism about some of my posts that have provided constructive criticism of this Government, I have sometimes prefaced my posts with "I write to save lives" 🚑 See the 4 points below 👉👉👉👉 When the country is led and governed by people who very clearly have been chosen not for their competence and capability, but just for their "loyalty" to a failed ideology (check out Attorney General, Home Secretary, Health Secretary, Foreign Secretary etc) then that puts lives at risk, All the news about Priti Patel focuses on the distractions she trails such as wave machines and Ascension Island. Have you stopped to think what it would be like if we had a proper Home Secretary who might in the midst of the biggest peacetime crisis this country has faced give some attention to how things are at home in the UK? The professional capabilities of Justine Greening, Rory Stewart, Jeremy Hunt, Alistair Burt and Dominic Grieve for exam

  From: Mike Cashman  Sent: 02 October 2020 12:06 To: 'STEWART, Iain' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk> Cc: 'Peter Cook'  Subject: RE: Recent correspondence concerning the breaking of the manifesto commitment to the "oven-ready" Deal   Dear Iain   Thank you for writing back. This is very much appreciated.   I am glad you enjoyed (is that the word?) the video   I note your comment that in general you will not reply, and of course therefore assume that this comment may apply to this email. At the same time I am pleased to hear that you do read the correspondence. While I apologise if any publicity has given you cause for concern, I am a little puzzled about your “broadcasting” comment. My view is that your actions as an MP – including correspondence with constituents on matters of public policy  - can be shared in the public domain. I will read any alternative view on this that you might wish t