Dominic Cummings

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Locked
Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 4:24 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:16 pm
But out of interest, if they had both been incapacitated at the same time in April, would that have justified their decision to drive north in March?
No, because it breached the lockdown rules. There was nothing stopping either one of his sister or his nieces travelling to London in an emergency for childcare though had they needed it, or using any of the local services for childcare that they had on their doorstep. Are you suggesting that a man in his position couldn't have made arrangements?

The jolly is purely that, a jolly. The stories his wife told and what he told are unravelling and people like you are still defending him. The thought to use an example which demonstrates the he broke the law to detract from the fact that he broke the lockdown rules and used that as reason along with the bare faced lie about predicting a pandemic in 2019 is proof enough that he is lying again and again, and our PM is defending him... but for how much longer.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Tue May 26, 2020 4:25 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:16 pm
You're still arguing that they should not have gone to Durham in March because they were not going to be ill in April. You haven;t yet explained how they knew they weren't going to be both incapacitated simultaneously.

But out of interest, if they had both been incapacitated at the same time in April, would that have justified their decision to drive north in March?
Hindsight is wonderful :lol: :lol:

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by nil_desperandum » Tue May 26, 2020 4:26 pm

Stayingup wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:00 pm
Cleary not stuck to the rules, just like Stephen Kinnock didn't. But. Yesterday in the Lake District National Park the car parks were open and there were many walkers, a lot in groups. Striding Edge was well used. I dont believe that all these people lived there.
I'm really not sure what point you are making there. Personally I don't approve of people driving more than a few miles at present to beauty spots etc., but my view doesn't count.
Since the PM told us a couple of weeks ago that we can drive as far as we want and as often as we want for exercise etc. people have understandably taken advantage of this by going to the beach, the National parks etc etc. In this context, why does it matter where these people live?
And following yesterday's defence of Cummings by himself and his senior colleagues I would imagine that more people will now feel more justified in going further afield.
Basically, Cummings, Kinnock and some other senor politicians broke the rules, whereas those walking on Striding Edge aren't.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 4:29 pm

Grumps wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:22 pm
Nothing to do with child abuse
The exact paragraph Cummings and others quoted fron is included in the document linked.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -infection
My information reference was from a lady who was on the SAGE board and she stated via Twitter that the exception was purely for domestic abuse and not because he felt threatened in his own home (for which he had the Met Police on hand to deal with that). I'm sorry that I cant find the exact reference though, but feel free to find it for me.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6903 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Rileybobs » Tue May 26, 2020 4:31 pm

Damo wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:15 pm
In a thread, where you are displaying your disgust for people in politics lying, I gave you some examples of other people in politics lying.
The fact you are absolutely disgusted about one group and not the other says that you dont look at situations for what they are. Nor would your hypothetical feelings about Cummings actions being the same had he been advising Corbyn.
Please dont double down on your dishonesty by claiming otherwise. You are starting to sound like DC
Oh, and had your hypothetical situation been a reality, I probably would have posted some memes or something. I certainly wouldn't be ranting about it for days.
In truth, your standards are no higher than mine when it comes to politics. You still vote for the person you think best suits your circumstances. Even when they are proven to be dishonest.
You're just deviating away from the point on a tangent, another tactic employed by a lot of posters on here. You can compare Corbyn sitting on a train floor to this situation if you like but it is pretty stupid. I wasn't a fan of Corbyn, but to my knowledge he didn't stare down a camera lens and tell pre-prepared barefaced lies to me.

The fact is, you have acknowledged that Cummings and Johnson have lied to the public, in fact you seem to admire how masterful his deceit is. You have demonstrated that you have enjoyed the public being 'whipped into a frenzy' by Cummings. You then suggest that the main issue here is Brexit. What world do you live in?

And I stand by the fact that if this was a labour government under the same circumstances my view would be exactly the same. You can choose not to believe me if you wish, but thankfully not everyone is as partisan as you.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 26, 2020 4:31 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:29 pm
My information reference was from a lady who was on the SAGE board and she stated via Twitter that the exception was purely for domestic abuse and not because he felt threatened in his own home (for which he had the Met Police on hand to deal with that). I'm sorry that I cant find the exact reference though, but feel free to find it for me.
To be fair if you read the link Grumps posted then Cummings actions still aren't justified. Need to remember that a child isn't considered a vulnerable person with those Covid guidelines
This user liked this post: Zlatan

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Tue May 26, 2020 4:32 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:29 pm
My information reference was from a lady who was on the SAGE board and she stated via Twitter that the exception was purely for domestic abuse and not because he felt threatened in his own home (for which he had the Met Police on hand to deal with that). I'm sorry that I cant find the exact reference though, but feel free to find it for me.
It's in the paragraph, helpfully titled... Living with children.....

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 4:34 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:31 pm
To be fair if you read the link Grumps posted then Cummings actions still aren't justified. Need to remember that a child isn't considered a vulnerable person with those Covid guidelines
I forgot that the Autism link was created by one of the BOTs on Twitter to muddy the waters enough for people (including me I'll add) to be swayed that his child may be on the Spectrum and as such in the vulnerable group

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 4:39 pm

Grumps wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:32 pm
It's in the paragraph, helpfully titled... Living with children.....
Yes, that's the correct section, well done, gold star.

The caveat "we are aware that not all these measures will be possible" was intended to permit those people who were suffering from domestic abuse to be able to leave the property with their children - nothing else, not this rubbish about his child being vulnerable or them not being capable to look after the child. That is the point I was making. There's enough political comment about this, feel free to read it.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by martin_p » Tue May 26, 2020 4:42 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:39 pm
Yes, that's the correct section, well done, gold star.

The caveat "we are aware that not all these measures will be possible" was intended to permit those people who were suffering from domestic abuse to be able to leave the property with their children - nothing else, not this rubbish about his child being vulnerable or them not being capable to look after the child. That is the point I was making. There's enough political comment about this, feel free to read it.
Wasn’t it also to cover putting a child in a car and driving 30 minutes when you weren’t sure you were fit to drive?

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 26, 2020 4:43 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:39 pm
Yes, that's the correct section, well done, gold star.

The caveat "we are aware that not all these measures will be possible" was intended to permit those people who were suffering from domestic abuse to be able to leave the property with their children - nothing else, not this rubbish about his child being vulnerable or them not being capable to look after the child. That is the point I was making. There's enough political comment about this, feel free to read it.
It also allows that should the actual situation arise where the adults in the property are to sick to look after the child then (and only then) can alternative arrangements be made.

That could have been someone from Durham coming and collecting the child, it could have been family or friends in London collecting the child or it could have been support from the community or social services. It did not enable you to shift all of you to the other side of the country just in case you both became seriously ill so you could have specifically who you wanted best to look after your child

As it happens all the measures stayed possible all of time for Cummings and his family so the caveat never came in to play

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 4:44 pm

martin_p wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:42 pm
Wasn’t it also to cover putting a child in a car and driving 30 minutes when you weren’t sure you were fit to drive?
yeah, but he gets to pick and choose which bits apply because he can read between the lines about who it does and doesn't apply to as he was involved in writing the document. How dare the public question the Overlord...!

Corky
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:37 pm
Been Liked: 535 times
Has Liked: 414 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Corky » Tue May 26, 2020 4:47 pm

I think the one thing that this thread has shown is how some people are prepared to really push the boundaries of common sense and logic to defend the indefensible. Similar in fact to the one where I rather naughtily decided to call all those who voted for an obvious racist - Johnson - racists themselves. And rather than saying well yes that was racist, the lengths that these people were prepared to go to in an attempt to defend him are now mirrored in how some are trying to defend Cummings. There is absolutely no point in trying to reason with these people; it is beyond logic. You just need to accept that Johnson/Cummings could burst into their house, crap on their carpet and the only response it would illicit would be - well they didn't have anywhere else to go. Unbelievable Jeff.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Tue May 26, 2020 4:47 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:39 pm
Yes, that's the correct section, well done, gold star.

The caveat "we are aware that not all these measures will be possible" was intended to permit those people who were suffering from domestic abuse to be able to leave the property with their children - nothing else, not this rubbish about his child being vulnerable or them not being capable to look after the child. That is the point I was making. There's enough political comment about this, feel free to read it.
I don't quite see how you reach the conclusion about domestic abuse
Has anyone claimed the child was vulnerable, as per the definition within the Covid guidelines? I certainly didn't hear him claim that

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by dsr » Tue May 26, 2020 4:52 pm

Aren't all 4 years old vulnerable, by definition? I though "vulnerable" mean that the person was unable to a greater or lesser degree to be responsible for himself or herself. There may be a strict legalese definition that means something different, but in practice, I don't see how any 4 year old couldn't be vulnerable.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Tue May 26, 2020 4:53 pm

Grumps wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:47 pm
I don't quite see how you reach the conclusion about domestic abuse
Has anyone claimed the child was vulnerable, as per the definition within the Covid guidelines? I certainly didn't hear him claim that
So if the child wasn't vulnerable then the trip to Durham wasn't justified thanks for clarifying that Grumps.
This user liked this post: Zlatan

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 4:53 pm

Grumps wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:47 pm
I don't quite see how you reach the conclusion about domestic abuse
Has anyone claimed the child was vulnerable, as per the definition within the Covid guidelines? I certainly didn't hear him claim that
to be fair, I don't think he did either. However there was enough doing the rounds that his defence was based on his child being autistic, which was picked up on by a lot of journalists and its since come to light that it is not the case.

Thats the trouble with all this - theres enough mis/disinformation doing the rounds via social media that no one can actually pin point the lies anymore and guys like Cummings manipulate this to his and their advantage. Its his job!

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Colburn_Claret » Tue May 26, 2020 4:54 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:29 pm
At the time of the visit to the castle he was breaking lockdown rules, hence the apparent fairy tale about testing his eyesight by driving, illegally I must add, to the castle
He wasn't visiting the castle, that was closed at the time. He drove to the town of Barnard Castle, as I said it is possible to do that and maintain social distancing. Lots of people on this board have been for walks, bike rides, and driven to places. I presume they all used common sense and avoided getting close to others, why is it so difficult to believe that he did the same. This is just a media led witch hunt, on a day when thousands flock to Southend on Sea and other coastal resorts, HE is the target. It's a fact that he's been a target of the media, and Labour, for 2 years. Now like a dog with a bone they dont want to let go.
I'll say again IF he did what he says he did, for the reasons he did, then he's done nothing wrong.
Nobody has any proof he's lying, they just choose not to believe him because they don't like him. I understand that, it doesn't make them right.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 26, 2020 4:55 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:52 pm
Aren't all 4 years old vulnerable, by definition? I though "vulnerable" mean that the person was unable to a greater or lesser degree to be responsible for himself or herself. There may be a strict legalese definition that means something different, but in practice, I don't see how any 4 year old couldn't be vulnerable.
No not in terms of Covid vulnerability. They become vulnerable when (and only when) the adults become unable to look after them. This didn't happen so the child never became vulnerable
This user liked this post: Zlatan

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by dsr » Tue May 26, 2020 4:55 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:52 pm
Aren't all 4 years old vulnerable, by definition? I though "vulnerable" mean that the person was unable to a greater or lesser degree to be responsible for himself or herself. There may be a strict legalese definition that means something different, but in practice, I don't see how any 4 year old couldn't be vulnerable.
To reply to myself, this site https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... rue&bhcp=1 defines a vulnerable person as "In general, a vulnerable person is either a minor or someone who, for physical or mental reasons, is unable to look after themselves or their finances."

So a 4 year old is by definition vulnerable regardless of disability.

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 4:56 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:52 pm
Aren't all 4 years old vulnerable, by definition? I though "vulnerable" mean that the person was unable to a greater or lesser degree to be responsible for himself or herself. There may be a strict legalese definition that means something different, but in practice, I don't see how any 4 year old couldn't be vulnerable.
I understand your point, however a 4 year old could quite easily just sit there and wait until a responsible adult arrives from elsewhere, whereas a 18 month old toddler couldn't - there are varying degrees of vulnerability. In this case, probably albeit wrongly, the spin was that his child was Autistic, hence clearly vulnerable.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by TVC15 » Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:16 pm
You're still arguing that they should not have gone to Durham in March because they were not going to be ill in April. You haven;t yet explained how they knew they weren't going to be both incapacitated simultaneously.

But out of interest, if they had both been incapacitated at the same time in April, would that have justified their decision to drive north in March?
Of course I am still arguing this. That's because the sole reason / rationale Cummings has put forward for justifying his trip to Durham was that they would have nobody to look after their child if they were both incapacitated at the same time....and that was never going to happen given the timings of each of them getting the virus and also the fact that she only ever had mild symptoms. To be honest I do not believe Cummings was ever incapacitated. Given the ludicrous holes in his story I think he knew he was spotted by a number of people and they then fabricated and exaggerated the extent of his illness.

As for your second question the answer is no on the basis that I think they are both lying about the support he could have had nearer to home in the same way they are lying about a number of other points.

If you want to believe what they are saying including their day trip to the castle coincidentally on his wife's birthday to "test out his eyesight" then you feel free to defend him. That's completely up to you...my guess is that you are in a small minority of people who believe him.
This user liked this post: tiger76

Barry_Chuckle
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:24 pm
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 203 times
Location: Oldfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Barry_Chuckle » Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:29 pm
My information reference was from a lady who was on the SAGE board and she stated via Twitter that the exception was purely for domestic abuse and not because he felt threatened in his own home (for which he had the Met Police on hand to deal with that). I'm sorry that I cant find the exact reference though, but feel free to find it for me.
And he felt so threatened, that he returned 14 days later :lol:
This user liked this post: Zlatan

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:55 pm
To reply to myself, this site https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... rue&bhcp=1 defines a vulnerable person as "In general, a vulnerable person is either a minor or someone who, for physical or mental reasons, is unable to look after themselves or their finances."

So a 4 year old is by definition vulnerable regardless of disability.
These were specific guidelines for Covid and within those guidelines the govt have defined what classes as vulnerable. Being a young child is not one of the qualifying factors

Damo
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
Been Liked: 1777 times
Has Liked: 2761 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Damo » Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:31 pm
You're just deviating away from the point on a tangent, another tactic employed by a lot of posters on here. You can compare Corbyn sitting on a train floor to this situation if you like but it is pretty stupid. I wasn't a fan of Corbyn, but to my knowledge he didn't stare down a camera lens and tell pre-prepared barefaced lies to me.

The fact is, you have acknowledged that Cummings and Johnson have lied to the public, in fact you seem to admire how masterful his deceit is. You have demonstrated that you have enjoyed the public being 'whipped into a frenzy' by Cummings. You then suggest that the main issue here is Brexit. What world do you live in?

And I stand by the fact that if this was a labour government under the same circumstances my view would be exactly the same. You can choose not to believe me if you wish, but thankfully not everyone is as partisan as you.
We dont have to take you at your word. We can search your comments to see how you reacted to each event. Or we can see on this thread the way you play down one instance of dishonesty while being disgusted at the other.
My comments arnt deviating away from the point where you challenged me for having low standards when it comes to voting either.
I'm quite open in stating that I vote for people who are dishonest. In highlight Corbyn's lies, I was just demonstrating that your standards are clearly no higher. That's not deflecting from what Cummings did. It's just a reply to your assessment of my character

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:31 pm
To be fair if you read the link Grumps posted then Cummings actions still aren't justified. Need to remember that a child isn't considered a vulnerable person with those Covid guidelines
Yeh! but you have to remember DA the guidelines only apply to the minions not to the elite such as Dominic Cummings,come on get with the programme and know your place.;

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 26, 2020 4:59 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 pm
Yeh! but you have to remember DA the guidelines only apply to the minions not to the elite such as Dominic Cummings,come on get with the programme and know your place.;
Sorry forgot myself for a moment :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACvXR0sQDkM

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Tue May 26, 2020 5:00 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:53 pm
So if the child wasn't vulnerable then the trip to Durham wasn't justified thanks for clarifying that Grumps.
Iam talking about the isolation at the farm, that's what the guidelines cover, and he never mentioned anything other than the paragraph I've linked

It really shouldn't matter because he should have been sacked for his drive to Barnard Castle.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by dsr » Tue May 26, 2020 5:00 pm

This is what the law said at that time about restrictions on movement:

Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;
(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;
(e)to donate blood;
(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(g)to attend a funeral of—
(i)a member of the person’s household,
(ii)a close family member, or
(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;
(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;
(i)to access critical public services, including—
(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);
(ii)social services;
(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);
(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;
(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;
(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;
(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

So there is no question that leaving home to provide care for a child is allowed if there is need. Now, where he might be in trouble is the suggestion that the child does not "need" care until both parents are incapacitated to the extent of being unable to look after him. At that point, and at that point only - it is alleged - they can get help in. What the child does while his parents are unable to look after him but help has not yet arrived, I'm not sure.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by dsr » Tue May 26, 2020 5:03 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:56 pm
I understand your point, however a 4 year old could quite easily just sit there and wait until a responsible adult arrives from elsewhere, whereas a 18 month old toddler couldn't - there are varying degrees of vulnerability. In this case, probably albeit wrongly, the spin was that his child was Autistic, hence clearly vulnerable.
You try telling social services that it's OK to leave a child alone in the house because he could easily sit there and wait until a responsible adult arrives. It won't wash.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Tue May 26, 2020 5:03 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:56 pm
I understand your point, however a 4 year old could quite easily just sit there and wait until a responsible adult arrives from elsewhere, whereas a 18 month old toddler couldn't - there are varying degrees of vulnerability. In this case, probably albeit wrongly, the spin was that his child was Autistic, hence clearly vulnerable.
Spin from where re autism

Thought it was just a twitter rumour

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 26, 2020 5:04 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:00 pm


So there is no question that leaving home to provide care for a child is allowed if there is need. Now, where he might be in trouble is the suggestion that the child does not "need" care until both parents are incapacitated to the extent of being unable to look after him. At that point, and at that point only - it is alleged - they can get help in. What the child does while his parents are unable to look after him but help has not yet arrived, I'm not sure.
If you read the full guidelines Grumps posted you will see it talks about this and encourages people to make plans for the full 14 days and seek out support locally should someone need to step in.

Their family in Durham and London could have been on standby to go over and collect the child as soon as the parents both became to ill to cope

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by dsr » Tue May 26, 2020 5:06 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 pm
These were specific guidelines for Covid and within those guidelines the govt have defined what classes as vulnerable. Being a young child is not one of the qualifying factors
Link? The only link I can find is this one which is specifically for clinically vulnerable. It doesn't affect the status of other vulnerable people.

Steve1956
Posts: 17179
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
Been Liked: 6463 times
Has Liked: 2896 times
Location: Fife

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Steve1956 » Tue May 26, 2020 5:09 pm

FB_IMG_1590509285629.jpg
FB_IMG_1590509285629.jpg (19.98 KiB) Viewed 2695 times

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by dsr » Tue May 26, 2020 5:11 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:04 pm
If you read the full guidelines Grumps posted you will see it talks about this and encourages people to make plans for the full 14 days and seek out support locally should someone need to step in.

Their family in Durham and London could have been on standby to go over and collect the child as soon as the parents both became to ill to cope
Yes they could. But now you're going away from the "evil monster who made a completely unnecessary journey" to "man who tried to do his best for his child and didn't judge it right".

Durham, incidentally, is a long way if you're waiting until it becomes an emergency. London relatives as an interim are dubious - we already know that uncle's family were busy in other ways, and brother-in-law as short term baby sitter would have had to self-isolate for 14 days if he had come into contact with CD, SW, or presumably the son.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Tue May 26, 2020 5:15 pm

Grumps wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:00 pm
Iam talking about the isolation at the farm, that's what the guidelines cover, and he never mentioned anything other than the paragraph I've linked

It really shouldn't matter because he should have been sacked for his drive to Barnard Castle.
Yes we agree on that point it's the trip to Bernard Castle that could prove his Achilles heel,it's a grey area whether they needed to go to Durham,but that trip could be justified if he and his family felt threatened or in danger in their London home,or if he thought either or both parents could be incapacitated and the child wouldn't have care,it's arguable but he might have been able to get around that one trip alone.

Even on this board there's been conflicting views on that,but there's absolutely no reason why he and the family had to drive to Bernard Castle,they weren't in danger at their residence in Durham as far as we're aware,and if he or his wife or child became unwell during that journey they would have placed additional stress on an already stretched emergency services,besides the fact that he could have had an accident or the vehicle could have broken down on route leaving them stranded.

It doesn't help his cause that he's continuing to be belligerent and insisting he did nothing wrong,a little humility goes a long way in these situations.

A simple apology and an acknowledgement that he'd pushed the boundaries of the guidelines even and he'd not be receiving so much flak.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 26, 2020 5:15 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:11 pm
Yes they could. But now you're going away from the "evil monster who made a completely unnecessary journey" to "man who tried to do his best for his child and didn't judge it right".

Durham, incidentally, is a long way if you're waiting until it becomes an emergency. London relatives as an interim are dubious - we already know that uncle's family were busy in other ways, and brother-in-law as short term baby sitter would have had to self-isolate for 14 days if he had come into contact with CD, SW, or presumably the son.
Nope he's never been accused of being an evil monster but just someone who broke the rules. It is you et al who have tried to paint him as being in some kind of extreme situation where travelling up to Durham was his only option.

Thousands have people have stuck to these stay at home guidelines with the risk of all adults getting ill or even with them being ill but still managing to look after a child who have much less connections and family options close by as Cummings had

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Devils_Advocate » Tue May 26, 2020 5:18 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:06 pm
Link? The only link I can find is this one which is specifically for clinically vulnerable. It doesn't affect the status of other vulnerable people.
I'll try and find it later on but there was a big argument about it on here ages ago where the govt claimed something about 70 year olds only being classed as vulnerable with an underlying condition but the messaging was proved to say different

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 5:22 pm

dsr wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:03 pm
You try telling social services that it's OK to leave a child alone in the house because he could easily sit there and wait until a responsible adult arrives. It won't wash.
At no point at all was the Cummings child not being cared for by an adult, nor was there a risk of it being the case where the child would be left alone

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 5:24 pm

Grumps wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:03 pm
Spin from where re autism

Thought it was just a twitter rumour
Correct, however it was retweeted by several prominent people to be factually correct - hence spin.

Barry_Chuckle
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:24 pm
Been Liked: 586 times
Has Liked: 203 times
Location: Oldfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Barry_Chuckle » Tue May 26, 2020 5:30 pm

Watching the latest briefing, the use of the words "a reasonable person" in relation to anything DC related, is grinding my gears. If DC had been a reasonable person, none of this would be being discussed.
These 2 users liked this post: Zlatan longsidepies

Zlatan
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:06 pm
Been Liked: 2229 times
Has Liked: 5739 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Zlatan » Tue May 26, 2020 5:31 pm

Let’s be clear about this. Hancock kept stating that the exceptional circumstances applied if parents were unable to take care of their child. AT NO POINT WERE BOTH CUMMINGS OR HIS WIFE INCAPACITATED. It is a disgrace

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10273
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1942 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Tue May 26, 2020 5:35 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:24 pm
Correct, however it was retweeted by several prominent people to be factually correct - hence spin.
Including dsr unsurprisingly.

Grumps
Posts: 4145
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 954 times
Has Liked: 359 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Grumps » Tue May 26, 2020 5:36 pm

Zlatan wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:24 pm
Correct, however it was retweeted by several prominent people to be factually correct - hence spin.
That's the problem with society today, believing that everything on twitter is true... Plenty on here have posted opinions believing it to be true.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6903 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Rileybobs » Tue May 26, 2020 5:39 pm

Damo wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 pm
We dont have to take you at your word. We can search your comments to see how you reacted to each event. Or we can see on this thread the way you play down one instance of dishonesty while being disgusted at the other.
My comments arnt deviating away from the point where you challenged me for having low standards when it comes to voting either.
I'm quite open in stating that I vote for people who are dishonest. In highlight Corbyn's lies, I was just demonstrating that your standards are clearly no higher. That's not deflecting from what Cummings did. It's just a reply to your assessment of my character
Go on then. Please search my posts to find instances of me defending any politician for lying.

You think its fine that Cummings and Johnson have blatantly lied to the public and you are defending them, even reveling in the fact that they've got the public's back up by doing so. By default, that means you have lower standards than me.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by tiger76 » Tue May 26, 2020 5:44 pm

So 71% of the public are wrong then OK.

Citing a YouGov poll conducted today, a journalist from the Financial Times says 71% of the public believed Mr Cummings's drive to Durham broke the lockdown rules. He asks whether all those people misunderstood the rules.

Mr Hancock doesn't answer the question directly but says: "The guidelines were drafted with exceptional circumstances in mind."

If you have adults that are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance, he says.

"It is reasonable to conclude that the description of events that Mr Cummings put out yesterday was within the guidelines."

As Zlatan's already mentioned at no point were both parents unable to provide childcare,this is disingenuous at best,and blatant hypocrisy and lies at worst.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Tue May 26, 2020 5:49 pm

As he did not conform, he should be dealt with as any other civilian was dealt with at the time of the offence ----£60 fine --job done.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by AndrewJB » Tue May 26, 2020 5:50 pm

I can’t believe I’ve actually heard some of what has been said by cabinet ministers to defend Cummings. Treating the people with contempt like that is not going to go well. Doing wonders for Johnson’s poll ratings.

TVC15
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:09 pm
Been Liked: 3321 times
Has Liked: 601 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by TVC15 » Tue May 26, 2020 5:57 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:49 pm
As he did not conform, he should be dealt with as any other civilian was dealt with at the time of the offence ----£60 fine --job done.
Seriously ?
You think that the PM’s official and most senior advisor who is literally creating government policy and strategy in relation to lockdown should be fined £60 not only breaking the guidelines but then subsequently lying to the whole of the country ?
Surely it should be at least £120 to cover his wife too !

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14566
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Dominic Cummings

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Tue May 26, 2020 5:58 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 5:44 pm
So 71% of the public are wrong then OK.

Citing a YouGov poll conducted today, a journalist from the Financial Times says 71% of the public believed Mr Cummings's drive to Durham broke the lockdown rules. He asks whether all those people misunderstood the rules.

Mr Hancock doesn't answer the question directly but says: "The guidelines were drafted with exceptional circumstances in mind."

If you have adults that are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance, he says.

"It is reasonable to conclude that the description of events that Mr Cummings put out yesterday was within the guidelines."

As Zlatan's already mentioned at no point were both parents unable to provide childcare,this is disingenuous at best,and blatant hypocrisy and lies at worst.
They haven't asked 100% of the people, the poll is saying 71% of those asked, but they assume its representative of the people when it isn't.

Millions of people couldn't give a toss about what he did because they'll believe he acted in the best interests of his family and they'll happily accept it.

He looked at worst case scenario and acted.
If I was living in Burnley and my only available trusted childcare was here in Oxfordshire then you can be absolutely certain I'd be driving down here.

Yes there are parts of his story that don't quite make sense, but it's not worth getting fired over, it's not the same as going shagging, nor visiting a 2nd home twice.

It's definitely not as bad as attending funerals etc.

The furore is being whipped up by the media because they're convinced they can finally get rid of the man who's led them a merry dance for a while now.
There are reasons why people have started to lose faith in the media and this is a perfect example of why.

Locked