Covid-19

[TVC15]

One of the reasons the close family in London was not able to help was because Cummings' uncle was dying in hospital and his immediate family had other things on their mind.

What and his uncles sister in Durham did not have this on her mind either ?
And was it not just in case of an emergency for something that was extremely unlikely to happen ? - ie both so incapacitated at the same time that neither would be able to look after their child ?
And guess what - it didn’t happen and they weren’t needed.
Why do you think that is so ? Possibly because she had symptoms before him ? Possibly because neither were incapacitated ? (And certainly not at the same time)

I know they have bent the guidelines to an extent that the vast majority of people do not recognise or were aware of these exceptions to the rule...but the whole thing becomes beyond ridiculous or defendable when you bear in mind that they were doing all of this for something that there was always a very small chance of happening - and never actually did.

[Zlatan]

Real hard evidence there.

Indeed, as opposed to actual hard evidence that the tw@t broke lockdown rules but hey ho

[martin_p]

So why haven't the press gone and asked them?

And why are you still using knowledge of how ill Ms Wakefield became later, as justification for criticising what Cummings did at the time? Do you believe that finding full time unpaid child care for a 4 year old is an easy thing to do while you are feeling at deaths' door?

Incidentally my claim that a caring full time for a 4 year old boy takes up a huge amount of time, surely doesn't need proof. Ask any parent. And my claim that mothers are sometimes fussy about who they leave their children with, also doesn't need proof. Again, ask any parent. In most cases, finding someone to volunteer to step in and look after a child full time is not easy to do; in many if not most cases, it would be a case of "well, if no-one else is available I suppose I could" rather than a string of willing and eager volunteers.

Fussy or not there still has been no explanation of why the carer(s) couldn’t travel to London rather than having one (potentially two) infected people travel.

[bfcjg]

It's the cover up as much as the actions that people are angry about. Why wasn't it publicised straight away where he was and why it would have been a non story and perhaps could have created case law.

[Bfcboyo]

Who gives a toss when all the happy clappers on Thursdays were having ve day tea parties that descend into raves and chaos across the whole country. Half of the people moaning will have breached lockdown in some form . Move on and drop the witch hunt . Somebody mentions above not to do with party colour, well let's line up all the real hard moaning posters chasing that resignation and let's see what the party colour is . When we have the numbers you will see it is mainly down to the party , if Corbyn or Starmer had made the same error of judgement the whole thing may be reversed.

Let's be honest about it though and be honest with yourself about your motives .

[CombatClaret]

Move on and drop the witch hunt..
Let's line up all the real hard moaning posters chasing that resignation and let's see what the party colour is .

Tries to stop a 'witch hunt' with a witch hunt.

[Damo]

We had discussed what to do if it got worse, and my partners parents were on standby to collect our child should that be necessary.

So you did have exactly the same choice available as he did?
Thanks for confirming my point

[Grumps]

Read my post, it’s in there

I've read it
You could have moved, it's not against the rules in your circumstances

You seem to be saying you need help, family or other support groups to assist you. I think that backs up what Cummings did, does it not, IF the only family and support was away from London, or the only place the child would settle

If the child is autistic, surely all the guidelines around mental health ( parents and child) and vulnerable people come into play.

[Grumps]

Fussy or not there still has been no explanation of why the carer(s) couldn’t travel to London rather than having one (potentially two) infected people travel.

And do what when they get to London?

[claretspice]

I've read it
You could have moved, it's not against the rules in your circumstances

You seem to be saying you need help, family or other support groups to assist you. I think that backs up what Cummings did, does it not, IF the only family and support was away from London, or the only place the child would settle

If the child is autistic, surely all the guidelines around mental health ( parents and child) and vulnerable people come into play.

Lot of "ifs" there.

[TVC15]

Can somebody post a link where the guidelines say that if you have a child with autism you can travel to the other end of the country even if one of the parents does not have Covid.
The link should clear matters up nicely.

[Grumps]

Lot of "ifs" there.

Correct, because, unlike others on here, I don't know for certain the exact circumstances of the case.

[Grumps]

Can somebody post a link where the guidelines say that if you have a child with autism you can travel to the other end of the country even if one of the parents does not have Covid.
The link should clear matters up nicely.

There's a link on the previous page, what you can do with any child.
Which basically says you don't have to abide by all the rules

[Swizzlestick]

One wonders why they haven’t told us the exact circumstances.

[TVC15]

Well we know it’s a fact that Cummings did not have Covid when he decided to travel.
Post the link based on the facts we know - should be simple enough.

[claretspice]

Correct, because, unlike others on here, I don't know for certain the exact circumstances of the case.

These things you posit are defences and motivations that answer the original question of "why, Dom?".

Day 3 after the allegations were publicised, the fact none of the PM, any cabinet minister sent out to defend him, any of these anonymous sources, nor indeed any back bench MPs who will all know enough of Cummings to know the bones of his family circumstances, have mentioned any of these defences, makes one suspect the reasonable conclusion is they dont exist.

[Swizzlestick]

I mean, if everything is above board as Boris asserted yesterday, please tell us the specifics. And yes, the public have a right to know - people have missed weddings, funerals, the passing of loved ones, not seen close relatives because of guidance he introduced. So let’s have it, because at the moment this is undermining ten weeks worth of public health advice and, moving forward, has the potential to make a mockery of anything the government has to say.

[dsr]

Rubbish.

I am in as close to exactly the same situation as Cummings. We have a young child with Autism; we live 100 miles from nearest family member; my partner had Covid-19 symptoms in March. In addition to this I was meant to be shielding, but we did not consider at any time that it would be best for our child for us to travel to anywhere BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE RULES. We bedded down and rode it through, with support from our local community groups for medication and supplies. We had discussed what to do if it got worse, and my partners parents were on standby to collect our child should that be necessary.

Just to add, anyone who has a child with Autism knows that routine and familiarity are essential for the child to feel safe, Cummings did not follow his instinct as a parent in that respect.

Cummings saw himself as superior to everyone else, and he should go for the good of the country. If Johnson continues to support him he should go too.

I don't see it as a virtue that you would put slavish obedience to the rules ahead of the welfare of your child. In a way there is something admirable in deciding that your child should not have what is best for him, because "the rules say so" - but bear in mind that the rules approve of a million children moving about the country from parent to parent just because that's what they usually do, I don't see that moving one more child would make a significant difference. If I had a child, and the rule was unclear about whether I could do what was best for him, I think I might do my best for the child and damn the rules. Sometimes, breaking the rules is OK.

So yes, the rules say that 15 year old Jack can move the length of the country twice a week without issue and they may say that 4 year old Fred can't move even once however much benefit it would be. Just because Jack's parents are divorced and Fred's aren't. But if Fred's parents decide that what is best for Fred is to do what Jack does regularly, does that mean that Fred's parents must be appalling people?

Or is it more that the press and public have pre-decided that Fred's parents are appalling people and anything can be used as a stick to beat them with?

[CombatClaret]

Weston Super Mare hospital has temporarily stopped accepting new patients due to a “high number of patients with coronavirus in the hospital”.

Just one hospital but I hope it's not the vanguard of a larger increase.

[TVC15]

So the person who is telling everyone to stay at home decides that because he has a child he can make up his own rules even though that person does not even have Covid.

Right I get it now - I’m sure the rest of the country understood those rules in exactly the same way. That’s why so many people were travelling 300 miles to a place with a much lower infection rate - bucket and spade in the boot - just in case they got Covid and were incapacitated at the same time.

Perfectly clear now. If you have a child the rules don’t apply and you can make the rules up....because any mother and father would do the same to look after their little Tarquin (except tens of millions didn’t did they ?)

[Zlatan]

Can somebody post a link where the guidelines say that if you have a child with autism you can travel to the other end of the country even if one of the parents does not have Covid.
The link should clear matters up nicely.

I could only find a link to a Guardian article that refers to it changing for people with learning disabilities - interestingly the change in regulations came a week AFTER Cummings went to Durham and was spoken to by the police. Just saying...

It is worrying that DC has such a hold over our PM, or doesn’t anyone else see it for what it is? The question remains, what does DC have on BJ...? I suspect it’s Brexit related and also includes that fantastic and open now defunct organisation Cambridge Analytica...

[Swizzlestick]

“Sometimes breaking the rules is ok”

And there we have it.

[Zlatan]

I don't see it as a virtue that you would put slavish obedience to the rules ahead of the welfare of your child.

As someone who clearly doesn’t understand a child with Autism you won’t realise that staying home in familiar surroundings was the best thing for our child. Dominic Cummings was caught out, it appears that he may have had influence on those who make the rules to change them retrospectively to suit his excuse, and he is using his child’s autism as an excuse to visit family in Durham.

[Lord Beamish]

“Sometimes breaking the rules is ok”

And there we have it.

I’d be surprised if DSR wasn’t dizzy right now.

[dsr]

So the person who is telling everyone to stay at home decides that because he has a child he can make up his own rules even though that person does not even have Covid.

Right I get it now - I’m sure the rest of the country understood those rules in exactly the same way. That’s why so many people were travelling 300 miles to a place with a much lower infection rate - bucket and spade in the boot - just in case they got Covid and were incapacitated at the same time.

Perfectly clear now. If you have a child the rules don’t apply and you can make the rules up....because any mother and father would do the same to look after their little Tarquin (except tens of millions didn’t did they ?)

I think it's a matter of the degree of the "crime".

For example, suppose your little Tarquin is the son of a single parent whose grandparents have shared custody. So along come Tarquin's grandparents every weekend and take him away and go and play in the park and give him sweets and do all the grandparently things they do.

And little friend Tabitha next door talks to Tarquin via Zoom and Tarquin tells her about playing with his grandparents in the park. And Tabitha, who hasn't seen her grandparents for 2 months because her mother has sole custody, asks why she can't go to the park with her grandparents as well. And mother gives in, and along come grandparents and take her to the park.

And if you're in the lynch mob waiting outside with cameras and placards and rude gestures, make sure you point the cameras etc at the right family. Because although the actual physical difference between Tarquin's grandparents and Tabitha's grandparents trips to the park is nil, Tabitha's grandparents have not followed the rules and therefore are evil monsters who are going to kill us all, whereas Tarquins' are upstanding citizens who have followed the rules and done nothing wrong. Even though they are just as likely to kill us all - but they will have done it legally.

[Swizzlestick]

Why are you talking about something that bears absolutely no relation to the story? What are you talking about? What are you doing? Why?

[FactualFrank]

Weston Super Mare hospital has temporarily stopped accepting new patients due to a “high number of patients with coronavirus in the hospital”.

Just one hospital but I hope it's not the vanguard of a larger increase.

2 weeks following VE day celebrations / street parties and their beach was packed. I wouldn't be surprised to see full localised lockdowns soon.

[dsr]

As someone who clearly doesn’t understand a child with Autism you won’t realise that staying home in familiar surroundings was the best thing for our child. Dominic Cummings was caught out, it appears that he may have had influence on those who make the rules to change them retrospectively to suit his excuse, and he is using his child’s autism as an excuse to visit family in Durham.

I certainly don't understand your particular child with autism. I didn't even realise that all children with autism were the same - I thought they were all their own people with their own habits and idisyncracies.

Dominic Cummings isn't using his child's autism as an excuse. He hasn't said whether the child has autism, so how could he be using it as an excuse?

I'm a bit confused by your contradictory statements.

we did not consider at any time that it would be best for our child for us to travel to anywhere BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE RULES

As someone who clearly doesn’t understand a child with Autism you won’t realise that staying home in familiar surroundings was the best thing for our child

You've said that you didn't consider what was best for your child and then gone on to say that you did what was best for your child. How does that work?

[dsr]

Why are you talking about something that bears absolutely no relation to the story? What are you talking about? What are you doing? Why?

It's a principle. Some people hold that the rules are set in black and white and a breach is seriously, critically, wrong. Others see shades of grey.

[TVC15]

Why are you talking about something that bears absolutely no relation to the story? What are you talking about? What are you doing? Why?

He’s trying (and failing spectacularly) to be clever.

[Zlatan]

I certainly don't understand your particular child with autism. I didn't even realise that all children with autism were the same - I thought they were all their own people with their own habits and idisyncracies.

Dominic Cummings isn't using his child's autism as an excuse. He hasn't said whether the child has autism, so how could he be using it as an excuse?

I'm a bit confused by your contradictory statements.


You've said that you didn't consider what was best for your child and then gone on to say that you did what was best for your child. How does that work?

Read it again “we did not consider at any time that it would be best for our child for us to travel to anywhere BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE RULES”

That is not contradictory at all, unless you take a snippet to suit your statement like you did “ we did not consider at any time”...

Typical of someone who’s losing the argument

[Lord Beamish]

Why are you talking about something that bears absolutely no relation to the story? What are you talking about? What are you doing? Why?

He is, and I know this seems impossible, making himself look even more of a twit.

[TVC15]

It's a principle. Some people hold that the rules are set in black and white and a breach is seriously, critically, wrong. Others see shades of grey.

Bit too long to put on the podium but yep pretty much sums up the position
How about ?
You lot stay at home
Save lives
Save our NHS
And leave the grey areas to us

Gonna need a bigger bus / podium

[Swizzlestick]

It's a principle. Some people hold that the rules are set in black and white and a breach is seriously, critically, wrong. Others see shades of grey.

Got it. So for us - stay at home. For senior government advisers - there’s shades of grey / sometimes it’s ok to break the rules.

[Zlatan]

It's a principle. Some people hold that the rules are set in black and white and a breach is seriously, critically, wrong. Others see shades of grey.

As someone who should be setting an example the option of a shade of grey is not an option. You cannot expect anyone to follow what you dictate if you cannot abide by those rules yourself.

Yes there are shades of grey, however that argument should be limited to those unable to understand what the original black and white are, not those who defined the black and white in the first place and to which there should be no confusing black from white

[Darthlaw]

It's a principle. Some people hold that the rules are set in black and white and a breach is seriously, critically, wrong. Others see shades of grey.

I think it’s more shades of red and blue, but the point is correct.

In this case it’s an opportunity for vengeance against nasty Brexit making Mr Cummings bogeyman. Best to sacrifice him to our Guardians, now.

[Grumps]

These things you posit are defences and motivations that answer the original question of "why, Dom?".

Day 3 after the allegations were publicised, the fact none of the PM, any cabinet minister sent out to defend him, any of these anonymous sources, nor indeed any back bench MPs who will all know enough of Cummings to know the bones of his family circumstances, have mentioned any of these defences, makes one suspect the reasonable conclusion is they dont exist.

Mr shapps or whatever he's called, read out, word for word the passage regarding children, which I have quoted, in the very first briefing after the story broke, I caught emmon Holmes quoting it this morning when discussing it with journalists, it depends how hard you look

[Bordeauxclaret]

If it’s red versus blue does this now mean Sir Keir Starmer has won the support of The Daily Mail?

Quite a political shift.

[Darthlaw]

I don’t know, I haven’t seen the Daily Mail user on here.

Given Cummings has made enemies across the spectrum, it’s not that surprising to see, is it?

[Rileybobs]

I think it’s more shades of red and blue, but the point is correct.

In this case it’s an opportunity for vengeance against nasty Brexit making Mr Cummings bogeyman. Best to sacrifice him to our Guardians, now.

Interesting assertion. Because taking this forum as an example, I can see people on both sides of the divide condemning Cummings for his actions and calling for his job. Whereas I can only see a small minority defending him, and they are all on the blue side. Go figure.

[BurningBeard]

Seems as though there's enough to merit a formal police investigation...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -cummings

[CombatClaret]

“It is vital that the force can show it has the interests of the people of County Durham and Darlington at its heart, so that the model of policing by consent, independent of government but answerable to the law, is maintained."

Here, here.

[Grumps]

Interesting assertion. Because taking this forum as an example, I can see people on both sides of the divide condemning Cummings for his actions and calling for his job. Whereas I can only see a small minority defending him, and they are all on the blue side. Go figure.

I think you'd class me as being on the blue side

Throughout this I've said sack him if he's broken the rules guidelines whatever you wish to call them

It's just I haven't seen enough evidence to say he has done legally. If that comes then sack him

[bf2k]

I've just read a collection of the comments on the last couple of pages of this thread and the only thing I've learnt is posters of Up The Clarets can't debate and accept someone else's point of view even if you don't agree with it. Instead varying degrees of insults are poured out

Becoming a pathetic read this forum unfortunately.

[bf2k]

I think you'd class me as being on the blue side

Throughout this I've said sack him if he's broken the rules guidelines whatever you wish to call them

It's just I haven't seen enough evidence to say he has done legally. If that comes then sack him

Finally some sense spoken.

[Barry_Chuckle]

This isn't going to go away, unfortunately Boris has backed the wrong horse here in a 2 horse race.
The reluctance to answer any questions in a straight forward manner, as well as cutting off the person questioning before they could follow up on his answer, or lack of, shows Boris has lost it. Sadly, by supporting Cummins he's also losing the support of the country at a time when the government need to be strong, decisive and most importantly transparent and trustworthy.

For the record, I voted Tory at the election and sit here in disbelief to what I'm observing at number 10.

[jackmiggins]

Once this vile pandemic is over, will we be told that we are ‘following the economics’? No further explanation required. The obvious and blatant extent that our politicians are prepared to bare face lie has exceeded, even my, low expectations of them!

[CombatClaret]

I think you'd class me as being on the blue side
Throughout this I've said sack him if he's broken the rules guidelines whatever you wish to call them
It's just I haven't seen enough evidence to say he has done legally. If that comes then sack him

Regulations which are essentialy law state "no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

Since he left his place of living the burden of proof is now on him to provide reasonable excuse, a defense from the law is not the same an being exempt. It is his responsibility to be 100% forthcoming as to all his movements outside of his home and I hope the police investigation will shed some light.

[Grumps]

Seems as though there's enough to merit a formal police investigation...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -cummings

If that investigation shows he acted within the law, can we call it a day?

If found he did break the law, he'll be sacked...... What the PM does then will be the next debate.

[Swizzlestick]

If it’s found he’s broken the law, the PM’s position is untenable.