Liverpool fans celebrating outside Anfield

Sage meetings don't have observers. Dominic Cummings was a participant. Google it if you don't believe me, you'll find many sage members commenting in how much input he had in the meetings and as far as I'm aware having input is different to observing.

 

Am I missing something here? Sage is a UK group who advised the UK government not WHO.

 

.

 

I

t would appear there are 2 SAGE, the one I referred to and the one you are. However the fact remains Cummins was not part of that group, merely an observer.

 

Not surprised. Plenty of carp and bream though.

 

He wasn't an observer though he was a participant. An observer just observes, Dominic Cummings had an input.

 

Can you name these many Sage members please?
When I have done searches all I can find on record commenting on him attending is a Neil Ferguson who said different.
There are 2 unnamed sources claiming he joined in conversations though.

 

Oh pollocks
When I wrote that post I thought to myself 'minnows there's some fin wrong here' but I codn't plaice it even though it was obvious.

 

I don't have their names at hand no but downing Street has confirmed that Cummings participated in the meetings rather than silently observing.

 

Oh God (pun deliberately eschewed) I did fear I'd set off the monthly fish puns thread.

 

That’s because the names don’t exist, all that exists is ‘ 2 sources’ as quoted in an article in the Guardian.
Downing Street confirmed he asked questions occasionally, which I concede this is more than an observer but it is a far cry from being a member who sets the rules or the Chairman of Sage.

 

The UK government has never claimed that article (or the other articles also citing two sources) is inaccurate. They have confirmed though as you say that Dominic Cummings has been a participant at the meetings. To clarify at a sage meeting a participant may speak, an observer may not and may only ask questions in writing in advance of the meetings.

Do you trust Boris Johnson to tell the truth? I don't. Downing Street admitted that he asks questions and thus participates. They refused to say how much participation that is. If I was under fire for doing something and I could deny it I would. If I couldn't deny it I'd be vague.

Also during Cummings's lying session live on BBC he was asked questions and it was mentioned to him many times that he was involved in setting the rules. He never once denied it, in fact he admitted it

 

Seems I was mistaken about him having an official position on the SAGE committee ( Tories take note, that’s how to hold your hand up to a mistake) He was more than an observer at these meetings, and on occasions, more than asked questions, a simple google will reveal various sources ( not just Guardian) from various SAGE meetings asking why he and an accomplice were even there.

 

That's because there isn't an official sage committee as such. It changes depending on what the situation is and people are selected based on their expertise on the situation.

For example there were sage meetings when that damn was breaching last year and it would have been pointless having biochemistry experts involved

 

I’ll ask you same, please provide names from simple google search?
I’ve tried and can’t find them only 2 sources, as per reply to Super Tyke though Neil Ferguson is on record.

 

Do I trust BJ? No but because one article said he might have been intervening and there is only one article the rest refer to the article in the Guardian, I don’t leap to the conclusion that an unfounded accusation with nothing to back it up Is true to suit an argument about him being on the committee.
You say they have never disputed the article? Perhaps you should re read it as in the same article it clearly says

“It is factually wrong and damaging to sensible public debate to imply [Sage] advice is affected by government advisers listening to discussions,” a Downing Street spokesperson said. “It is entirely right that No 10 advisers attend to better understand the scientific debate and the decisions that need to be taken.”

 

That is denying that they were 'influenced' by him participating in the meetings. It isn't denying his participation. The devil is in the detail.

 

you've made a nonsense of your own post whilst typing it.

Why on earth would an unelected beaurocrat need to go to sage and cobra meetings!

 

Am I right in saying you’ve spent at least 3 posts telling us he was just an observer, a fact, and then you concede he asked questions and participated. Just checking that because you used the word fact earlier. So thought I’d just check.

 

In an earlier post I did say the fact is he was not on the committee and was an observer and then admitted I was wrong about just being an observer as he did ask questions etc.