Dominic Cummings

[joey13]

Was he “testing his eyesight”? He didn’t say that did he.

“We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely, we drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town.

“We did not visit the castle, we did not walk around the town.”

His eyesight may have been affected but having finished quarantine he went for a drive to make sure he felt ok before a 260 mile drive a couple of days later. Seems a pretty sensible precaution

Gullible

[joey13]

What's happened to the papers/reporters who told lies about multiple trips from London to Durham?

What’s happened to Johnson who lies everytime he opens his mouth ?
Another gullible acolyte for the cult of Johnson

[claretspice]

What's happened to the papers/reporters who told lies about multiple trips from London to Durham?

That allegation is not proven. There's Dominic Cummings says its a lie, and that his mobile phone would prove it. But no-one has actually seen those records, and of course all that would show is that the mobile phone stayed in London.

It might be that the papers' source on that claim was mistaken (which would mean it was still an honest piece of journalism) and got their dates wrong, but equally it might be true.

[Burnley Ace]

You've missed the important bit just before you started the quote. This is where he mentions the illness had affected his vision and when they are talking about seeing if he is safe to drive it is in relation to the fact that they were worried that his vision had not recovered fully

Do you mean this bit - "My wife was very worried, particularly as my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease," he said.

Where does it say that they were worries his vision had not recovered fully? You are making a presumption that as one of the symptoms (his eyesight) was still impaired. This is the spin that Labour have been trying to reinforce that he just drove to test his eyesight. Not really impactful if he had said

“It was rough, eyes blurred, felt sick, difficulty breathing, weakness - all the usual symptoms. After I’d been in Durham for 2 weeks, and it was ok for me to return to London, I suggested, to be fair it was my wife’s birthday as well and we’d all been inside for Nearly all of 2 weeks, that wed go for a drive. We drove to Barnard Castle and back, I felt fine, the car was fine and the next day we packed up ready to return”

[Burnley Ace]

Gullible

Yes facts always seem to baffle you.

[summitclaret]

I have probably missed it, do we know why the trip to the outskirts of BC might be a minor breach of the regulations? For example, was it less than 14 days after DC or anyone else in household had Covid symptoms?

Or was it because he had left the house without good reason? If he had driven 25 miles to get exercise and maintained social distancing whilst outside for less than an hour, is that a breach? I suspect it is not and that is where the Police comment about having a word had he been stopped whilst driving, came from. That being the case why was he daft enough to mention testing his ability to drive safely?

Someone said the other day that BJ should have removed DC from Covid matters whilst the Police investigated and maybe indefinitely now.

[Grumps]

What’s happened to Johnson who lies everytime he opens his mouth ?
Another gullible acolyte for the cult of Johnson

So it's OK for the looney left press to tell lies, but hang anyone else?

[Devils_Advocate]

Do you mean this bit - "My wife was very worried, particularly as my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease," he said.

Where does it say that they were worries his vision had not recovered fully? You are making a presumption that as one of the symptoms (his eyesight) was still impaired. This is the spin that Labour have been trying to reinforce that he just drove to test his eyesight. Not really impactful if he had said

“It was rough, eyes blurred, felt sick, difficulty breathing, weakness - all the usual symptoms. After I’d been in Durham for 2 weeks, and it was ok for me to return to London, I suggested, to be fair it was my wife’s birthday as well and we’d all been inside for Nearly all of 2 weeks, that wed go for a drive. We drove to Barnard Castle and back, I felt fine, the car was fine and the next day we packed up ready to return”

The below is all written is the part of his statement to explain why he went for a drive. It is all linked together and therefore unless you are just trying to deliberately obfuscate you would read and understand it this way.

"My wife was very worried, particularly given my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease. She didn't want to risk a nearly 300-mile drive with our child, given how ill I had been. We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely"

I have no problem if someone argued the drive wasn't just about his eye sight but was to check that as well as his vision not being a problem he also wanted to check he was feeling fit enough in general

If however you are saying that somoene has to explicitly state something in direct language or it cannot be concluded by the use of common language interpretation then I'll remember this with everything you post and claim and hold you to the same standards which should be fun

[martin_p]

Do you mean this bit - "My wife was very worried, particularly as my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease," he said.

Where does it say that they were worries his vision had not recovered fully? You are making a presumption that as one of the symptoms (his eyesight) was still impaired. This is the spin that Labour have been trying to reinforce that he just drove to test his eyesight. Not really impactful if he had said

“It was rough, eyes blurred, felt sick, difficulty breathing, weakness - all the usual symptoms. After I’d been in Durham for 2 weeks, and it was ok for me to return to London, I suggested, to be fair it was my wife’s birthday as well and we’d all been inside for Nearly all of 2 weeks, that wed go for a drive. We drove to Barnard Castle and back, I felt fine, the car was fine and the next day we packed up ready to return”

If he’s made the statement he made and he didn’t intend everyone to think he’d driven to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight then he’s not a very good communicator!

Besides, if you think he’d driven to Barnard Castle because they’d been cooped up for two weeks and it was his wife’s birthday and that wouldn’t have been breaking the lockdown rules you’re wrong anyway.

[Grumps]

I have probably missed it, do we know why the trip to the outskirts of BC might be a minor breach of the regulations? For example, was it less than 14 days after DC or anyone else in household had Covid symptoms?

Or was it because he had left the house without good reason? If he had driven 25 miles to get exercise and maintained social distancing whilst outside for less than an hour, is that a breach? I suspect it is not and that is where the Police comment about having a word had he been stopped whilst driving, came from. That being the case why was he daft enough to mention testing his ability to drive safely?

Someone said the other day that BJ should have removed DC from Covid matters whilst the Police investigated and maybe indefinitely now.

I've always maintained the original trip from London was lawful, which has proved to be correct.

I don't for one minute think the trip to BC was within the guidelines, remembering that at the time, you couldn't drive for excercise.
I said after the press conference I didn't believe the eyesight test story. I think he'd been caught out, and that was the best excuse he could come up with.

[Burnley Ace]

I have no problem if someone argued the drive wasn't just about his eye sight but was to check that as well as his vision not being a problem he also wanted to check he was feeling fit enough in general

If however you are saying that somoene has to explicitly state something in direct language or it cannot be concluded by the use of common language interpretation then I'll remember this with everything you post and claim and hold you to the same standards which should be fun

Quite happy with both paragraphs - it seems that we are in a time when every word, punctuation mark and pause is forensically analysed.

You must now accept that he never said that he drove to BC to “test his eyesight“.

[Burnley Ace]

If he’s made the statement he made and he didn’t intend everyone to think he’d driven to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight then he’s not a very good communicator!

Besides, if you think he’d driven to Barnard Castle because they’d been cooped up for two weeks and it was his wife’s birthday and that wouldn’t have been breaking the lockdown rules you’re wrong anyway.

He may well, especially under the pressure of a live press conference, be a poor communicator- he didn’t appear to be very comfortable. I can’t find a comment from me where I have written that the drive to BC didn’t break the lockdown rules, I have written about proportionality, subjectivity, comparison to how other MPs have been dealt with, hatred toward DC and what would have probably happened if he had been stopped at the time - I don’t work for Durham Police and hadn’t seen their statement in advance

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Wonder if his wife did a test drive as well? Maybe there is another tourist attraction in the area she drove to. Safety first always.

[Devils_Advocate]

Quite happy with both paragraphs - it seems that we are in a time when every word, punctuation mark and pause is forensically analysed.

You must now accept that he never said that he drove to BC to “test his eyesight“.

He never said those exact words but he referenced vision problems as a reason driving home my be unsafe and why they decided to take a drive to test it.

[summitclaret]

I've always maintained the original trip from London was lawful, which has proved to be correct.

I don't for one minute think the trip to BC was within the guidelines, remembering that at the time, you couldn't drive for excercise.
I said after the press conference I didn't believe the eyesight test story. I think he'd been caught out, and that was the best excuse he could come up with.

Where in law did it say that you could not drive for exercise? I remember there being uncertainty. I think 25 miles was probably pushing the limits of reasonableness, but not sure it was illegal. However, if Durham Police have issued FPN to anyone else for driving similar distances then that would be different.

[Devils_Advocate]

So it's OK for the looney left press to tell lies, but hang anyone else?

'looney left press'

I might disagree with you a lot but I had you down for one of the more balanced and intelligent posters. Im sorry you are proving me wrong with comments like

[Grumps]

'looney left press'

I might disagree with you a lot but I had you down for one of the more balanced and intelligent posters. Im sorry you are proving me wrong with comments like

It's a well known phrase, there's been plenty similar on here about the right wing press, just balancing it out

[martin_p]

He may well, especially under the pressure of a live press conference, be a poor communicator- he didn’t appear to be very comfortable. I can’t find a comment from me where I have written that the drive to BC didn’t break the lockdown rules, I have written about proportionality, subjectivity, comparison to how other MPs have been dealt with, hatred toward DC and what would have probably happened if he had been stopped at the time - I don’t work for Durham Police and hadn’t seen their statement in advance

He was reading from a prepared statement, the pressure of a press conference had nothing to do with what he said. So although he didn’t explicitly say the words “to test my eyesight” it’s exactly what his statement means.

[Grumps]

Where in law did it say that you could not drive for exercise? I remember there being uncertainty. I think 25 miles was probably pushing the limits of reasonableness, but not sure it was illegal. However, if Durham Police have issued FPN to anyone else for driving similar distances then that would be different.

This explains pretty much what was in place, basically you shouldn't travel any great distance for exercise, and stay local.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/24/can-driv ... -12605236/

[summitclaret]

He was reading from a prepared statement, the pressure of a press conference had nothing to do with what he said. So although he didn’t explicitly say the words “to test my eyesight” it’s exactly what his statement means.

Yes he was reading it from a statement and that is what is weird. The press conference was delayed presumably whilst the statement was checked. What a poor proof read that was. He had no need to mention testing his driving and was trying to be too clever imo. It's not a hanging offence though, especially as the Police backed him on the main issue if moving up to Durham in the first place.

As I said, he should have been removed from Covid issues, just like when anyone else is facing allegations on anything. I'd still do that because of public trust, but the incitement to the public not to comply with the rules from Stamer and the SNP etc has to stop now.

[summitclaret]

This explains pretty much what was in place, basically you shouldn't travel any great distance for exercise, and stay local.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/24/can-driv ... -12605236/

Hence the uncertainty from the Police. What is local? Only a court could say in any given circumstance.

[Grumps]

Hence the uncertainty from the Police. What is local? Only a court could say in any given circumstance.

Agree its open to interpretation, but the punishment is via fixed penalty, so it would be up to the police to make the decision. However the police had the 4 E's strategy in place, engage, explain, encourage then enforce, something like that any way. So if they had told him to get in his car and drive home, and he did, the rest becomes irrelevant.

[Damo]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tricksy

Every day’s a school day.

Touche

[tiger76]

Yes he was reading it from a statement and that is what is weird. The press conference was delayed presumably whilst the statement was checked. What a poor proof read that was. He had no need to mention testing his driving and was trying to be too clever imo. It's not a hanging offence though, especially as the Police backed him on the main issue if moving up to Durham in the first place.

As I said, he should have been removed from Covid issues, just like when anyone else is facing allegations on anything. I'd still do that because of public trust, but the incitement to the public not to comply with the rules from Stamer and the SNP etc has to stop now.

Agree he should removed from frontline duties at least until the furore's died down.

Where have either Starmer or the SNP incited the public not to comply with the rules? Sources would be helpful.

[tiger76]

Add Peter Gibson MP to the stupid list,good job these people don't have any responsibility,you know like say running the country for instance.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coughing-mp-a ... 9705.html

[aggi]

What's happened to the papers/reporters who told lies about multiple trips from London to Durham?

Well given that there hasn't been any evidence that they lied, I would assume nothing. As I said to Ringo, it came up in the Liaison Committee the other day. They asked Johnson if he'd seen the evidence that made those stories "fake news" and he said yes. They asked if he was going to publish it or provide it to the Cabinet Secretary (who would normally investigate such matters) and Johnson refused.

So it may be that there is evidence to prove that those stories are lies but the main person who is saying that this evidence exists and we should all believe it is someone who has been sacked from their job for lying (multiple times) so it is difficult to make a judgement either way.

[Burnley Ace]

He was reading from a prepared statement, the pressure of a press conference had nothing to do with what he said. So although he didn’t explicitly say the words “to test my eyesight” it’s exactly what his statement means.

That’s your interpretation, he did not say it and it isn’t exactly what his statement means.

[aggi]

I've always maintained the original trip from London was lawful, which has proved to be correct.

I don't for one minute think the trip to BC was within the guidelines, remembering that at the time, you couldn't drive for excercise.
I said after the press conference I didn't believe the eyesight test story. I think he'd been caught out, and that was the best excuse he could come up with.

I've seen a few people say this but I haven't seen any official comment on that original trip. Have I missed something?

[Zlatan]

The thing is, the original trip was not lawful - we all know it, yet the powers that be have ensured that the spin is that he was "right" to do the initial trip. It was not lawful because he should have stayed at home as per the lockdown regulations that we all (well most of us!) adhered to - the bull about being harassed at home just wasn't true - there were no press outside his house until this story broke. He claimed that he had to leave to ensure childcare for his 4 year old - no (as already stated on this thread) the right course of action was to transport one of his nieces to his house for childcare and for him to remain at home.

So many holes in the story so many discrepancies with his wife's account (where he was bed bound for 10 days, yet managed to collect his son from hospital, and his wife didn't care to mention their child going to A&E!)

It is a manufactured pack of lies, most sane minded people can see that, only those who support his political position are offering leeway.

He is a charlatan and should be no where near our government or our PM

[Burnley Ace]

He never said those exact words but he referenced vision problems as a reason driving home my be unsafe and why they decided to take a drive to test it.

No he didn’t - My wife was very worried, particularly as my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease,"

Where does that say they were driving to test his eyes?

His wife was very worried (comma)
particularly as my eyesight (one of the symptoms)
Seemed to have been (past tense)
Affected by the disease

“We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely, we drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town”

Not to specifically test his eyesight but to make sure he felt capable of driving 260 miles to London. There is not even an implication that he wasn’t competent to do that (comparatively short) drive.

[tiger76]

Well given that there hasn't been any evidence that they lied, I would assume nothing. As I said to Ringo, it came up in the Liaison Committee the other day. They asked Johnson if he'd seen the evidence that made those stories "fake news" and he said yes. They asked if he was going to publish it or provide it to the Cabinet Secretary (who would normally investigate such matters) and Johnson refused.

So it may be that there is evidence to prove that those stories are lies but the main person who is saying that this evidence exists and we should all believe it is someone who has been sacked from their job for lying (multiple times) so it is difficult to make a judgement either way.

Simple way to clear any confusion up if there's evidence that the press fabricated news then just release this evidence into the public domain.

This would do 2 things it would make the press like foolish for printing the original claims,and it would legitimise Downing Street's and Dominic Cummings version of events.

It's this bunker mentality DS needs to stop if they've nothing to hid just be upfront,if they continue with this clandestine approach then rightly or wrongly many people will wonder what they're concealing.

[Burnley Ace]

The thing is, the original trip was not lawful - we all know it, yet the powers that be have ensured that the spin is that he was "right" to do the initial trip. It was not lawful because he should have stayed at home as per the lockdown regulations that we all (well most of us!) adhered to - the bull about being harassed at home just wasn't true - there were no press outside his house until this story broke. He claimed that he had to leave to ensure childcare for his 4 year old - no (as already stated on this thread) the right course of action was to transport one of his nieces to his house for childcare and for him to remain at home.

So many holes in the story so many discrepancies with his wife's account (where he was bed bound for 10 days, yet managed to collect his son from hospital, and his wife didn't care to mention their child going to A&E!)

It is a manufactured pack of lies, most sane minded people can see that, only those who support his political position are offering leeway.

He is a charlatan and should be no where near our government or our PM

“Get the police to investigate“ they screamed, use ANPR and SatNav data the Labour PCC demanded. Now the police have investigated “the powers that be have ensured that the spin” they whine.

You still pretending it’s not your personal opinion on Cummings? Only those that oppose him are still trying to drive this agenda? Man drove car when he probably shouldn’t have! Let it go, move on, you’ve wasted a week of our time - and you call Tories tha nasty party LOL

[Zlatan]

Simple way to clear any confusion up if there's evidence that the press fabricated news then just release this evidence into the public domain.

This would do 2 things it would make the press like foolish for printing the original claims,and it would legitimise Downing Street's and Dominic Cummings version of events.

It's this bunker mentality DS needs to stop if they've nothing to hid just be upfront,if they continue with this clandestine approach then rightly or wrongly many people will wonder what they're concealing.

the problem they are likely to have with that is that it will also prove that the whole story is fabricated. The evidence may well prove that he didn't return, but it will most like burn large holes in his statement too

[summitclaret]

Agree he should removed from frontline duties at least until the furore's died down.

Where have either Starmer or the SNP incited the public not to comply with the rules? Sources would be helpful.

By repeatedly saying why should the public comply with the rules when DC didn't. Its encouraging people to be stupid. The BBC are as bad. Their headline on their News bulletins and banner
on News 24 yesterday afternoon and night was Cummings broke lockdown or words to that effect. Factually incorrect as Police said he may have, not that he did. No mention of not breaking the law on the main issue in any headlines.

[Quickenthetempo]

The thing is, the original trip was not lawful - we all know it, yet the powers that be have ensured that the spin is that he was "right" to do the initial trip. It was not lawful because he should have stayed at home as per the lockdown regulations that we all (well most of us!) adhered to - the bull about being harassed at home just wasn't true - there were no press outside his house until this story broke. He claimed that he had to leave to ensure childcare for his 4 year old - no (as already stated on this thread) the right course of action was to transport one of his nieces to his house for childcare and for him to remain at home.

So many holes in the story so many discrepancies with his wife's account (where he was bed bound for 10 days, yet managed to collect his son from hospital, and his wife didn't care to mention their child going to A&E!)

It is a manufactured pack of lies, most sane minded people can see that, only those who support his political position are offering leeway.

He is a charlatan and should be no where near our government or our PM

Did any of the guidelines actually get enshrined in law? I was under the impression the police were very soft with everyone as they had no extra powers?

I tried to follow everything at first but I lost the will to live.

[Devils_Advocate]

No he didn’t - My wife was very worried, particularly as my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease,"

Where does that say they were driving to test his eyes?

His wife was very worried (comma)
particularly as my eyesight (one of the symptoms)
Seemed to have been (past tense)
Affected by the disease

“We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely, we drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town”

Not to specifically test his eyesight but to make sure he felt capable of driving 260 miles to London. There is not even an implication that he wasn’t competent to do that (comparatively short) drive.

When Corbyn was being accused of being racist and you were asked to give an example of him being racist you stated

Link the times Corbyn has been racist.

it’s not what he says it’s what he doesn’t do.

Took me two mins to find an example of you contradicting the ridiculous position you are taking to try and defend Cummings. Im sure there's hundred of examples and next time im bored I'll dig some out and share them with you

Thats the trouble when your opinion is completely based on an arbitrary position rather - you just look like a numbskull

[Burnley Ace]

When Corbyn was being accused of being racist and you were asked to give an example of him being racist you stated





Took me two mins to find an example of you contradicting the ridiculous position you are taking to try and defend Cummings. Im sure there's hundred of examples and next time im bored I'll dig some out and share them with you

Thats the trouble when your opinion is completely based on an arbitrary position rather - you just look like a numbskull

Is this Whataboutry at its finest? You’ve lost this one accept it. Man drives car is the best you’ve got.

As for Corbyn being racist - I would stand by the argument that by allowing racism to fester in the Labour Party, his siding with anti semites (addressed in the JLC letter) being an example

You might one to come back and argue being an anti Semite isn’t racist, but it’s the subjective implication which seems to be enough nowadays. Is his nature implied by his lack of action?

[Zlatan]

Man drives car is the best you’ve got.

No - I repeat - man broke laws that he was instrumental in defining for the rest of us, as agreed by a large majority of the country from all political angles, it's just that there has been an attempt to say "there's nothing to see here, move along" by the PM and the government.

I will not move along, this is wrong on so many levels...

[aggi]

Did any of the guidelines actually get enshrined in law? I was under the impression the police were very soft with everyone as they had no extra powers?

I tried to follow everything at first but I lost the will to live.

Yes.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... 350_en.pdf

[Burnley Ace]

No - I repeat - man broke laws that he was instrumental in defining for the rest of us, as agreed by a large majority of the country from all political angles, it's just that there has been an attempt to say "there's nothing to see here, move along" by the PM and the government.

I will not move along, this is wrong on so many levels...

He may have broken the laws, that he was involved in the making of is immaterial and he should be treated the same as we are all equal before the law, that may Be agreed because people’s opinions are formed by the media which has misrepresented the facts throughout to the extent that the personality became bigger than the story - which was Labours intention throughout- treat him the same way as others, especially other MPs have been treated.

[Devils_Advocate]

Is this Whataboutry at its finest? You’ve lost this one accept it. Man drives car is the best you’ve got.

Nope the driving is well down my list but just cant believe someone can try and excuse it. Then I look at who the people excusing it are and it all makes sense.

I didn't argue anything about racism and antisemitism. My point was showing how your hypocrisy on what level of proof you expect depending on what side of the argument you are on

Anyhow I'll be sure to provide you some more examples around your hypocrisy soon.

As for Whataboutery at its finest.....exhibit 'A' your honour

Only if you think having your mistress over for a night is the same as driving through a town in your car. Perhaps there might be a different response if Kinnock and Ali et al all resigned.

The more you comment the stupider you look. If you weren't so stupid I'd think you'd probably give it up but alas I wait for your next failed response.........

[Grumps]

I've seen a few people say this but I haven't seen any official comment on that original trip. Have I missed something?

Durham Police said it was lawful

[aggi]

Durham Police said it was lawful

Have they released another statement? The one yesterday very carefully didn't mention the London to Durham trip. I assume as it wasn't in their jurisdiction.

[Burnley Ace]

Nope the driving is well down my list but just cant believe someone can try and excuse it. Then I look at who the people excusing it are and it all makes sense.

Anyhow I'll be sure to provide you some more examples around your hypocrisy soon.

As for Whataboutery at its finest.....exhibit 'A' your honour



The more you comment the stupider you look. If you weren't so stupid I'd think you'd probably give it up but alas I wait for your next failed response.........

My argument was about proportionality and consistency - how do you make that point without giving an example! I directly refuted the argument being made that he was being treated the same as others.

To quote the definition “Whataboutism is a variant of the tuquoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy WITHOUT directly refuting or disproving their argument”

But hey, I will give you marks for trying! Good effort

[Burnley Ace]

Have they released another statement? The one yesterday very carefully didn't mention the London to Durham trip. I assume as it wasn't in their jurisdiction.

https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-e ... ent--.aspx

Is it covered in paragraph 2?

[Grumps]

Have they released another statement? The one yesterday very carefully didn't mention the London to Durham trip. I assume as it wasn't in their jurisdiction.

You must be reading something different than others
Here's the official version
https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-events/Pages/News Articles/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement--.aspx

[Grumps]

https://www.durham.police.uk/news-and-e ... ent--.aspx

Is it covered in paragraph 2?

Yes.

[Devils_Advocate]

My argument was about proportionality and consistency - how do you make that point without giving an example! I directly refuted the argument being made that he was being treated the same as others.

To quote the definition “Whataboutism is a variant of the tuquoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy WITHOUT directly refuting or disproving their argument”

But hey, I will give you marks for trying! Good effort

I have directly refuted your argument that because he didn't say something very specific then it couldn't be interpreted to be true. My example showed you arguing something to be true even though you had no evidence of it being said.

Thanks for helping me prove my point though

[martin_p]

No he didn’t - My wife was very worried, particularly as my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease,"

Where does that say they were driving to test his eyes?

His wife was very worried (comma)
particularly as my eyesight (one of the symptoms)
Seemed to have been (past tense)
Affected by the disease

“We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely, we drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town”

Not to specifically test his eyesight but to make sure he felt capable of driving 260 miles to London. There is not even an implication that he wasn’t competent to do that (comparatively short) drive.

You’re fixating on a detail that’s doesn’t change a thing. Whether it was his eyesight or another reason going for a drive to check if you’re ok to drive with your wife and child in the car is not only breaking lockdown but a stupid idea! Now most people have looked at what he said and made the not unreasonable conclusion that it’s his eyesight that was worrying him and no one has denied that, so I think it’s a fairly safe assumption anyway.

[Zlatan]

Yes.

and no...

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.(We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

So they deemed that he did not break the (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 but they wont comment on the Government Guidance to stay at home (which states that if you are suffering with Covid-19 symptoms you should STAY AT HOME) - that's the ambiguity that has been exploited, and you have to be a little dense to not realise that.