Dominic Cummings

[lakedistrictclaret]

Those of you who get The Times may already have seen this, but an anagram of ' stay alert, control the virus, save lives ' is ' easily survives travel north to the castle'.

[Grumps]

I don't think a reasonable person would disagree about Cummings trip to Durham,there's grey lines but he's certainly got a valid argument that is was for childcare reasons.

Where he might have made a minor misjudgement and seemingly the police came to this viewpoint is in the BC journey.

Now if he'd have come out and addressed these points and admitted his errors earlier then the subsequent media storm might not have ensued,the guy's only human like the rest of us he isn't immune to mistakes.

What appears to have riled up the public on all the political divides is his apparent lack of contrition.

It's amazing how far a simple apology will go to absolve yourself of blame.

And the way the cabinet attempted to defend him turned into a comedy show of it's own hence why some of their personal ratings slumped badly.

I''m more concerned about the negative effect it may have on the next phase of this test & trace strategy,that's my fear that public trust in the government is completely undermined and they don't participate in the scheme,because the scheme will ultimately only work if the public buy into it.

To summarise has Dominic Cummings done anything illegal no he hasn't.

Were his actions advisable for a senior government adviser in hindsight probably not,but in hindsight we'd all make different calls.

It's totally up to the PM if he wishes to dispense with Mr Cummings services or not,but he needs to be aware that he might lose support if he chooses to retain him,that's a political calculation he'll have to make.

And it appears he's willing to take the short-term hit to his polling numbers to keep Mr Cummings in post.

The dilemma for Labour is how long do they keep this story running.

If it wasn't so serious it'd be a great soap opera.

I don't think I disagree with any of that

My problem moving on, is the people who are arguing... Well he did wrong, so I will....
I've no problem if somebody drives 300 miles for childcare, in similar circumstances, but to use his actions as an excuse for not isolating when asked to ( no problem if they move house to do it, if safe) is plainly stupid
Using his actions not to follow the social distancing rules are more stupid
Whatever you think of Cummings, he never put anyone else in danger of catching the virus. The two examples above do.

[Grumps]

Those of you who get The Times may already have seen this, but an anagram of ' stay alert, control the virus, save lives ' is ' easily survives travel north to the castle'.

Not checked if it does..... But do people still think he drove to a castle?.... Plus its not north from his father's house, I think he said it was east, or south. .... Just saying

[tiger76]

I don't think I disagree with any of that

My problem moving on, is the people who are arguing... Well he did wrong, so I will....
I've no problem if somebody drives 300 miles for childcare, in similar circumstances, but to use his actions as an excuse for not isolating when asked to ( no problem if they move house to do it, if safe) is plainly stupid
Using his actions not to follow the social distancing rules are more stupid
Whatever you think of Cummings, he never put anyone else in danger of catching the virus. The two examples above do.

No people who are using the action's of one man to justify their own daft behaviour are stupid.

It certainly won't affect my behaviour in the slightest i'll exercise common sense when i do go outdoors to socialise which we now can in Scotland from today.

The social distancing rules are not what Dominic Cummings breached if you take his account at face value,he explained that he and his wife briefly left the vehicle to rest as he felt unwell,at no point did they approach anyone and his wife only interacted with another individual from a distance.

What baffles me more is the bizarre excuses emanating from the cabinet,that's what really worries me they all keep tying themselves in knots trying to be too clever by half,and once they've told a half-truth they'll still insist on doubling down.

And their in charge of the bleeding country.

[dsr]

Just reviewed it.

It appears that it is an offence to disobey the stay at home "guidance. I could find no caveat for relocation to provide care for a child. feel free to find it and show me.

This is the coronavirus law. We have already done this one to death, and only those people who don't believe that a child is a vulnerable person in law can find fault with it.

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—

... ... ...

(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;

[Greenmile]

They were asked to look into the whole incident

If it was an offence, it would have been a continuing offence, some would say the further from home you got, the more serious it would have been.

I just cannot believe the people on here, who try to portray their intelligence to us all on a daily, if not hourly basis, cannot get their head around a simple statement. He located to Durham... He drove to Durham.... He got in his car, put it in 1st gear, checked behind him... Pulled out, changed into 2nd gear.......... It all means the same

The statement doesn't say "locating to", though - it says "locating at". It's a really strange use of the language and I'm just looking for a reason for it.

Here it is again (emphasis mine) :-

"Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 ...."

Nobody talks / writes like that in real life. You'd say "by relocating himself to his father's premises", or , even more normal - "by moving / driving to his father's premises". Wouldn't that be less open to interpretation, which presumably is something that the police should try to acheive when making formal statements like this?

The best explanation I've seen so far is DA's - "they have been careful not to over commit to a position that they did not want to have to defend". Just wondering whether anyone has an alternative explanation. Perhaps one of our resident coppers will confirm that this is how police reports usually read.

I'm happy to accept the incoming accusations of pedantry, and I'm certainly not claiming that part of police statement somehow shows he's guilty of committing a different unnamed offence. I'm just genuinely interested in their decision to use that strange turn of phrase.

[Grumps]

No people who are using the action's of one man to justify their own daft behaviour are stupid.

It certainly won't affect my behaviour in the slightest i'll exercise common sense when i do go outdoors to socialise which we now can in Scotland from today.

The social distancing rules are not what Dominic Cummings breached if you take his account at face value,he explained that he and his wife briefly left the vehicle to rest as he felt unwell,at no point did they approach anyone and his wife only interacted with another individual from a distance.

What baffles me more is the bizarre excuses emanating from the cabinet,that's what really worries me they all keep tying themselves in knots trying to be too clever by half,and once they've told a half-truth they'll still insist on doubling down.

And their in charge of the bleeding country.

I think Goves statement that he's driven to test his eyesight was comical. Though I've never been impressed with him tbh.

[Greenmile]

I don't think I disagree with any of that

My problem moving on, is the people who are arguing... Well he did wrong, so I will....
I've no problem if somebody drives 300 miles for childcare, in similar circumstances, but to use his actions as an excuse for not isolating when asked to ( no problem if they move house to do it, if safe) is plainly stupid
Using his actions not to follow the social distancing rules are more stupid
Whatever you think of Cummings, he never put anyone else in danger of catching the virus. The two examples above do.

I'll repeat what I said last time you made this point -

"There are a lot of people this country who are “as thick as pig shite”, unfortunately.

My view is that they (along with everyone they may come into contact with) don’t deserve to catch a potentially fatal virus just because they’re thick, and therefore the govt and it’s advisors should consider how thick people are going to react to the messages they’re giving us. Perhaps you disagree.

Maybe this whole thing is just Cummings taking on the advice of that eugenicist he ended up hiring a few months back."

Like it or not, by giving thick people a reason / excuse not to follow social distancing rules (which, due to his position, he has done to a far greater extent than the likes of Kinnock and Ali), Cummings has put many people in danger - both the thick people and everyone they come into contact with.

[Grumps]

The statement doesn't say "locating to", though - it says "locating at". It's a really strange use of the language and I'm just looking for a reason for it.

Here it is again (emphasis mine) :-

"Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 ...."

Nobody talks / writes like that in real life. You'd say "by relocating himself to his father's premises", or , even more normal - "by moving / driving to his father's premises". Wouldn't that be less open to interpretation, which presumably is something that the police should try to acheive when making formal statements like this?

The best explanation I've seen so far is DA's - "they have been careful not to over commit to a position that they did not want to have to defend". Just wondering whether anyone has an alternative explanation. Perhaps one of our resident coppers will confirm that this is how police reports usually read.

I'm happy to accept the incoming accusations of pedantry, and I'm certainly not claiming that part of police statement somehow shows he's guilty of committing a different unnamed offence. I'm just genuinely interested in their decision to use that strange turn of phrase.

I've certainly seen police reports use that language, but they normally get dumbed down for the public. Someone in the Durham press office didn't do the job properly.

[Corky]

It is interesting in life that there are some people who when told by the authorities to jump, they ask how high, whereas there are others when given the same instruction ask, why.

[Zlatan]

This is the coronavirus law. We have already done this one to death, and only those people who don't believe that a child is a vulnerable person in law can find fault with it.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 wrote:
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—

... ... ...

(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;

indeed, thanks for that. they may leave the place where they are living to provide care - so, as has already been highlighted previously - DC was not justified to leave his house (unless you believe that he was being harassed - which is a lie as the media scrum didn't appear till the story broke) only a relative could leave their residence to provide care to his child or collect his child.

there, that's not hard to understand is it.

[Grumps]

In all honesty, has anyone seen this issue of what locating means in the police statement, being discussed anywhere else?

I haven't seen it in the press, on tv, or social media

Looks like it's one or two on a football messageboard that Carnt get their heads round it

Iam going to sit back now and see if Peston and his buddies bring it up at the daily feeding frenzy.

[Top Claret]

This saga is now done and dusted. Cummings keeps his job and Boris shows the world that he is a strong leader.

EU be warned

[TVC15]

The police are being understandably diplomatic and trying to stay out of the politics.

Whatever you way you look at the guidance I can’t see anywhere that says you are allowed to leave your home and travel elsewhere when at least one of you is well enough to look after the child. And there was always one of the parents well enough from the time they set off to the time they returned.

Everybody knows what he did was wrong - just like we know what Stephen Kinnock did was wrong as he did not travel to London from South Wales on his dads birthday to deliver shopping no more than Cummings drove to a castle on his wife’s birthday to see if he felt well enough to drive. If there was a law for taking the pi-ss out of the public and insulting our intelligence I’d stick them both in prison for their pathetic excuses.

[Spijed]

This saga is now done and dusted. Cummings keeps his job and Boris shows the world that he is a strong leader.

EU be warned

And it's a sad state of affairs when both of them care far more about poll ratings than the number of deaths from the virus.

[dsr]

indeed, thanks for that. they may leave the place where they are living to provide care - so, as has already been highlighted previously - DC was not justified to leave his house (unless you believe that he was being harassed - which is a lie as the media scrum didn't appear till the story broke) only a relative could leave their residence to provide care to his child or collect his child.

there, that's not hard to understand is it.

[dsr]

You have to be very strongly anti-Cummings to believe that "you may leave the house to provide care" specifically excludes people that you are transporting to another venue. You genuinely believe that if you and your wife were unable to provide proper care for your child, not necessarily because of your own ill health, you would not be allowed to take your child to a relative?

[Top Claret]

And it's a sad state of affairs when both of them care far more about poll ratings than the number of deaths from the virus.

Boris doesn't give a toss about the poll ratings he has an 80 seat majority and 5 years left in government

[Zlatan]

You have to be very strongly anti-Cummings to believe that "you may leave the house to provide care" specifically excludes people that you are transporting to another venue. You genuinely believe that if you and your wife were unable to provide proper care for your child, not necessarily because of your own ill health, you would not be allowed to take your child to a relative?

here's the thing, normal people like me (and my good lady) made plans for someone to collect our child in the event that we were incapacitated if we fell ill (which has happened, but we were not ill enough to warrant using that contingency). It wasn't that difficult to do even though our nearest relatives are over 80 miles away.

[Silkyskills1]

Don't think this lot do contingency plans. Hope they have something in mind for the fiasco we'll all soon be facing.

[Grumps]

The police are being understandably diplomatic and trying to stay out of the politics.

Whatever you way you look at the guidance I can’t see anywhere that says you are allowed to leave your home and travel elsewhere when at least one of you is well enough to look after the child. And there was always one of the parents well enough from the time they set off to the time they returned.

Everybody knows what he did was wrong - just like we know what Stephen Kinnock did was wrong as he did not travel to London from South Wales on his dads birthday to deliver shopping no more than Cummings drove to a castle on his wife’s birthday to see if he felt well enough to drive. If there was a law for taking the pi-ss out of the public and insulting our intelligence I’d stick them both in prison for their pathetic excuses.

The police didn't think he did anything wrong driving from London... End of

He drove to a town, not a castle.

[joey13]

Yes facts always seem to baffle you.

Keep ingesting the sunshine

[TVC15]

A lot of people owe me a large beer !

[Bordeauxclaret]

I reckon he will.

[AndrewJB]

I can’t believe people are splitting hairs over this. He left London due to “childcare issues.” London. Childcare issues. I don’t believe it. I think he’s lying. He and his wife bought their £1.whatever million house cash down. There is plenty of childcare available in London. He didn’t need to go to Durham.

The castle visit. Worries over his eyes, so on his wife’s birthday they drive 30 miles to a beauty spot to test his eyes? How stupid would we have to be to fall for this? Now Johnson won’t even publish the proof he’s seen, but expects us all to move along without comment.

Jobseekers claimants are not given the benefit of any doubt when they miss an appointment, but get sanctioned. The harsh reality this government expect us all to live under, so the same should apply to them. Fire him, and let him go through an appeals process to get his job back.