Is Johnson capable of telling the truth?

[martin_p]

As far as I can see they didn't have competitive tendering, they just bought from anyone that said they could supply. Obviously there were dismal failures of communication involving people who didn't know what they were doing, but if you have any evidence that this bid was chosen and another rejected as a result, please share.

There wasn’t, which is exactly my point.

[AndrewJB]

Sneer, sneer, sneer. The government in its dash for facemasks managed to order some of the wrong sort. Sneer, sneer. Why don't find a government that never makes any mistakes. Sneer, sneer.

Why are you so utterly contemptuous of the government about PPE? Not having enough in stock - you can complain about that. Not buying the stuff in fast enough - you can complain about that. But wasting money by buying the wrong stuff when by delaying a month or two they could have saved a few pennies? You complain about that? You would prefer to run out of PPE and let people die for the sake of relative petty cash? You ought to be better than that.

I’m not sneering. It’s my tax money they’re wasting, and my fellow citizens they’re endangering with their greed and / or rank incompetence.

Perhaps you’re more patient and understanding when it comes to stratospheric heights of failure, but how are you on corruption? How is it a completely unworthy company (I can say that both because they had no experience, and also failed to deliver) linked to a government advisor win a contract worth over a hundred million pounds, without anyone questioning how it looks?

[scouseclaret]

Sneer, sneer, sneer. The government in its dash for facemasks managed to order some of the wrong sort. Sneer, sneer. Why don't find a government that never makes any mistakes. Sneer, sneer.

Why are you so utterly contemptuous of the government about PPE? Not having enough in stock - you can complain about that. Not buying the stuff in fast enough - you can complain about that. But wasting money by buying the wrong stuff when by delaying a month or two they could have saved a few pennies? You complain about that? You would prefer to run out of PPE and let people die for the sake of relative petty cash? You ought to be better than that.

Maybe it’s to do with the fact that a contract was given to a company with with no experience of providing healthcare equipment (or anything else for that matter) that just happens to be run by a government advisor, which then provides kit that isn’t up to spec.

How much in the thrall of Johnson do you have to be to not see that this f@ck!ng stinks???

[AndrewJB]

Dominic Cummings - our very own unelected dictator. He claims he has proof he didn’t make a second trip up to Durham on April 19th, in the face of witnesses who say they saw him there. So just provide the proof.

[clarethomer]

Jesus..... another rant with no merit, or fact.

Witnesses saw him in Durham that day.
Witnesses saw him in Hampstead heath that day.

He explained that his phone and the meta data would back him up to being in London that day. There was insufficient evidence to back up the accusations made against him.

When you also consider that the first trip also - the matter was investigated with the police who agreed that no laws had been broken.

This should be sufficient to say that there is nothing further to answer for and his right for privacy should be something you recognise? Just in case you can't

Is privacy a right?

Privacy is a qualified, fundamental human right. The right to privacy is articulated in all of the major international and regional human rights instruments, including:

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, Article 17: “1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour or reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

The right to privacy is also included in:

Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers;
Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;
Article 10 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child;
Article 4 of the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression (the right of access to information);
Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights;
Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
Articles 16 and 21 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights;
Article 21 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration; and
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

My source... https://privacyinternational.org/explai ... .%E2%80%9D

[Spijed]

Jesus..... another rant with no merit, or fact.

Witnesses saw him in Durham that day.
Witnesses saw him in Hampstead heath that day.

He explained that his phone and the meta data would back him up to being in London that day. There was insufficient evidence to back up the accusations made against him.

When you also consider that the first trip also - the matter was investigated with the police who agreed that no laws had been broken.

This should be sufficient to say that there is nothing further to answer for and his right for privacy should be something you recognise? Just in case you can't

So what's the difference between that and the many people who have been fined for breaking lockdown and some of their names being published in newspapers?

Surely they have a right to privacy?

If you say they don't then you a a hypocrite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52674192

[thomaspaine]

BBC News - PM's child poverty claims 'inaccurate,' says statistics watchdog
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53588275

Johnsons a proven serial liar and appears to have no problem with continuing to be economical with the truth. Indeed Johnson /Cummings consistently lie on a variety of issues knowing full well that even if they are called out about it, then some mud will stick. They are more than prepared to use this as a tactic believing that the benefits outweigh the downside of being corrected.This was highlighted during the last Election when a series of Government spokespersons were wheeled out on a variety of issues to preach from an often fallacious script. In short they have no morals and are an embarrassment to this great country of ours.

[martin_p]

Jesus..... another rant with no merit, or fact.

Which bit wasn’t factual.

[AndrewJB]

Jesus..... another rant with no merit, or fact.

Witnesses saw him in Durham that day.
Witnesses saw him in Hampstead heath that day.

He explained that his phone and the meta data would back him up to being in London that day. There was insufficient evidence to back up the accusations made against him.

When you also consider that the first trip also - the matter was investigated with the police who agreed that no laws had been broken.

This should be sufficient to say that there is nothing further to answer for and his right for privacy should be something you recognise? Just in case you can't

Is privacy a right?

Privacy is a qualified, fundamental human right. The right to privacy is articulated in all of the major international and regional human rights instruments, including:

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, Article 17: “1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour or reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

The right to privacy is also included in:

Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers;
Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;
Article 10 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child;
Article 4 of the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression (the right of access to information);
Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights;
Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
Articles 16 and 21 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights;
Article 21 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration; and
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

My source... https://privacyinternational.org/explai ... .%E2%80%9D

In what way would his privacy be impinged by proving he wasn’t somewhere that he said he wasn’t?

[clarethomer]

Spijed - I think you are moving away from the point I was making.

The point, for clarity, is that he was found not to have broken the law.

To be called a dictator and to be called out by saying that he should be supplying evidence to the 'court of public opinion' when in this position is where his right to privacy comes into play.

A discussion about fines being issued incorrectly and being named has nothing to do with this point. If people were named and they shouldn't have been then this is equally wrong.

Andrew - he doesn't have to prove anything as he is not guilty of anything and the police have found this. That is where his right for privacy comes in. I thought a Corbynite like yourself would be accepting of the term innocent until proven guilty given all the times you start calling out people for calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser.

[martin_p]

Spijed - I think you are moving away from the point I was making.

The point, for clarity, is that he was found not to have broken the law.

To be called a dictator and to be called out by saying that he should be supplying evidence to the 'court of public opinion' when in this position is where his right to privacy comes into play.

A discussion about fines being issued incorrectly and being named has nothing to do with this point. If people were named and they shouldn't have been then this is equally wrong.

Andrew - he doesn't have to prove anything as he is not guilty of anything and given the police have found this. That is where his right for privacy comes in. I thought a Corbynite like yourself would be accepting of the term innocent until proven guilty given all the times you start calling out people for calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser.

What reason would he have for not choosing to prove where he was given the issues his trip has given the government and the evidence that the whole episode has decreased the public’s trust in the governments handing of Covid and weakened resolve around the lockdown? It seems a high price to pay.

Edit - and for clarity the police said his trip from London to the north east didn’t break the regulations but his trip to Barnard Castle ‘might have’.

And for further clarity this issue is about whether he made a separate trip the the north east from London on a different date so actually not related to the Durham police statement anyway.

[AndrewJB]

Spijed - I think you are moving away from the point I was making.

The point, for clarity, is that he was found not to have broken the law.

To be called a dictator and to be called out by saying that he should be supplying evidence to the 'court of public opinion' when in this position is where his right to privacy comes into play.

A discussion about fines being issued incorrectly and being named has nothing to do with this point. If people were named and they shouldn't have been then this is equally wrong.

Andrew - he doesn't have to prove anything as he is not guilty of anything and the police have found this. That is where his right for privacy comes in. I thought a Corbynite like yourself would be accepting of the term innocent until proven guilty given all the times you start calling out people for calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser.

Cummings isn’t an elected representative, but appears to wield a lot of power. I think Johnson is only in this for the birds, the booze, and the fun (based on his time as mayor of London), and considering the very poor quality of the cabinet, I’m guessing that Cummings does most of the heavy lifting. Unelected is definitely correct. Dictator might be harsh, but he’s already blurred the line between working for and being part of the government, so what term would you recommend we use to describe him?

You have to bear in mind that April 19th is a different day to the one Cummings answered questions about while blurring the distinction as per above by using the Number 10 Rose Garden.

I suppose it’s one of the problems that come with a barrage of lying, in that it’s difficult to take someone like that at their word. So when Johnson vouches for Cummings’ evidence that he was in London on that day, my first reaction is to doubt it. If Cummings won’t pony the evidence, then the police really have to look into it.

[clarethomer]

Sigh....

Andrew - If you are at all capable.... Please can you restate your point without any tripe in about personal opinions of the person please so I can at least understand what your point is? I can't be bothered with your personal opinions of someone.

Martin - he has not been found guilty of anything. There is nothing he needs to do in terms of providing any evidence to anyone. The police investigated the accusation of the 2nd trip following sightings of him being there on the 2nd date. To my knowledge, there is no ongoing police investigation on this point as there was insufficient evidence.

If at all I am misinformed on this then I will review my position but I can only work off the basis that the police have looked into this and found the allegations unable to be proven.

I go back to the point that surely we are all pleased that we have a legal system that requires the accusors to prove guilt rather than the accused to prove innocence. This doesn't just apply to a select set of people. It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country.

Look at Cliff Richard and where that ended in terms of when his privacy was breached before his guilt has been proven/established.

Do you not believe in the principles of innocent until proven guilty?

[Spijed]

Do you not believe in the principles of innocent until proven guilty?

What are your views of those who can't be found guilty because of a technicality in the legal system, for example?

[clarethomer]

What are your views of those who can't be found guilty because of a technicality in the legal system, for example?

I think that deserves a post of its own.

I am guessing that laws are written with consideration to ensure they are meeting the purpose in which they have been written for. I am not a lawyer, or legal expert but I would assume that our legal systems aim to ensure that fair justice is served to all which would include the fundamental principles that laws are written to ensure evidence of guilt has to be established before prosecution can take place and we don't operate where we can put anyone in front of a 'kangaroo' court where they have to prove innocence.

I am not sure what you mean by a technicality. Is this where for example it is decided that it is not in the public interest to prosecute so they get off on a 'technicality'?

[dsr]

The point about Cummings' "second" trip is that he said he didn't go to Durham that weekend, witnes 1 said he thought he saw Cummings, witness 2 said that he himself has often been mistaken for Cummings and suspect that witness 1 saw the witness 2 and thought it was Cummings, and the police have investigated and found there is nothing to see here.

Cummings was accused of a crime, investigated by police, who found no case to answer. The question is, I suppose, if any of us are accused of a crime and the police investigate and found the accusations to be unfounded, is that sufficient? Or should we have to come onto Up The Clarets to produce the evidence to prove our innocence on here? To what extent does the "guilty until proved innocent" maxim apply in public life?

[AndrewJB]

The point about Cummings' "second" trip is that he said he didn't go to Durham that weekend, witnes 1 said he thought he saw Cummings, witness 2 said that he himself has often been mistaken for Cummings and suspect that witness 1 saw the witness 2 and thought it was Cummings, and the police have investigated and found there is nothing to see here.

Cummings was accused of a crime, investigated by police, who found no case to answer. The question is, I suppose, if any of us are accused of a crime and the police investigate and found the accusations to be unfounded, is that sufficient? Or should we have to come onto Up The Clarets to produce the evidence to prove our innocence on here? To what extent does the "guilty until proved innocent" maxim apply in public life?

This link sums it up: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... o-10-urged

Given Cummings’ position, and the difficulty many had in believing his previous explanations, it’s probably best he presents his proof.

[Zlatan]

I suspect the problem with his proof will be that it incriminates him further for something else. For example he was somewhere else he wasn’t meant to be, yet it will prove he wasn’t in Durham. Pure conjecture of course.

[clarethomer]

This link sums it up: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... o-10-urged

Given Cummings’ position, and the difficulty many had in believing his previous explanations, it’s probably best he presents his proof.

I would find it hilarious if this was the level our society had to operate at. If the Guardian ask someone to prove it, it must be proven....

Good to know that you have respect of our legal system and that you are happy to create kangaroo courts for the British public to decide someone's guilt. Can we get Corbyn on the stand next?

[clarethomer]

I suspect the problem with his proof will be that it incriminates him further for something else. For example he was somewhere else he wasn’t meant to be, yet it will prove he wasn’t in Durham. Pure conjecture of course.

Or maybe he has only got the metadata because he has had Peter Firth to sort his phone out so it can back him up in some sort of deal to turn the focus off the BBC?

Maybe he was where he said he was?

[Spijed]

Or maybe he has only got the metadata because he has had Peter Firth to sort his phone out so it can back him up in some sort of deal to turn the focus off the BBC?

Maybe he was where he said he was?

The thing you don't seem to understand is that whilst he may not have broken the law it created a view to thousands of other people that if he can go as far away as Durham then others can do likewise up and down the country.

It was clearly obvious he had no respect for the rules yet everyone else was expected to follow the guidelines.

Is that fair when lock down was in place and many people couldn't even go to funerals, for example?

[martin_p]

The point about Cummings' "second" trip is that he said he didn't go to Durham that weekend, witnes 1 said he thought he saw Cummings, witness 2 said that he himself has often been mistaken for Cummings and suspect that witness 1 saw the witness 2 and thought it was Cummings, and the police have investigated and found there is nothing to see here.

Cummings was accused of a crime, investigated by police, who found no case to answer. The question is, I suppose, if any of us are accused of a crime and the police investigate and found the accusations to be unfounded, is that sufficient? Or should we have to come onto Up The Clarets to produce the evidence to prove our innocence on here? To what extent does the "guilty until proved innocent" maxim apply in public life?

If I had absolute proof I’d done nothing wrong and it was as simple as letting the police look at my phone and that act would stop a whispering campaign that I was lying which was also doing damage to my employer I’d be down the station banging on the door!

[dsr]

If I had absolute proof I’d done nothing wrong and it was as simple as letting the police look at my phone and that act would stop a whispering campaign that I was lying which was also doing damage to my employer I’d be down the station banging on the door!

If showing proof to the Prime Minister wouldn't stop a whispering campaign, why would showing proof to a policeman? Do you think that the people who don't believe a word Johnson says, will automatically believe that the police are always honest and always right?

The point of this renewed campaign is because people will not believe the proof unless they see it for themselves. They will not believe a third party.

[clarethomer]

I’m not arguing with the perception and the impact of his actions had on many people across the country.

There are two separate points there though.

Does a person have to prove where he was when there has been no police or legal action taken? The answer is a resounding No.

Should he feel compelled to show evidence even if he doesn’t have to? That is a resounding No also. He has a right to privacy and if the police have not taken any action just because he has done something people do t agree with and won’t put him in front of a proper court- there shouldn’t be a need to call a kangaroo one.

The bottom line here is that the double standards people impose to suit.

Corbyn - he doesn’t need to prove anything around his time with terror groups. He has said he was there brokering peace...

He was a potential PM at the time.

An unelected official who has a prominent role as an Adviser to the PM is getting hauled over the coals because because he hasn’t felt the need to share his phone data and pictures with the world.

Let’s just have a bit of consistency eh.. if you’re going to start getting on your high horses about what’s right and wrong?

[martin_p]

If showing proof to the Prime Minister wouldn't stop a whispering campaign, why would showing proof to a policeman? Do you think that the people who don't believe a word Johnson says, will automatically believe that the police are always honest and always right?

The point of this renewed campaign is because people will not believe the proof unless they see it for themselves. They will not believe a third party.

I’d imagine considerably more would believe the police than Johnson yes.

[martin_p]

I’m not arguing with the perception and the impact of his actions had on many people across the country.

There are two separate points there though.

Does a person have to prove where he was when there has been no police or legal action taken? The answer is a resounding No.

Should he feel compelled to show evidence even if he doesn’t have to? That is a resounding No also. He has a right to privacy and if the police have not taken any action just because he has done something people do t agree with and won’t put him in front of a proper court- there shouldn’t be a need to call a kangaroo one.

The bottom line here is that the double standards people impose to suit.

Corbyn - he doesn’t need to prove anything around his time with terror groups. He has said he was there brokering peace...

He was a potential PM at the time.

An unelected official who has a prominent role as an Adviser to the PM is getting hauled over the coals because because he hasn’t felt the need to share his phone data and pictures with the world.

Let’s just have a bit of consistency eh.. if you’re going to start getting on your high horses about what’s right and wrong?

Corbyn didn’t have any more proof than his word which people chose to believe or not. Cummings apparently has irrefutable proof on his phone, I ask again, why would he choose not to share that given the trouble it’s caused? If Corbyn had had similar irrefutable proof I’m fairly sure it’d have been produced.

[clarethomer]

If I had absolute proof I’d done nothing wrong and it was as simple as letting the police look at my phone and that act would stop a whispering campaign that I was lying which was also doing damage to my employer I’d be down the station banging on the door!

First point.

No one knows if the police have had his phone?

Police have been under the spotlight from the information commissioner about how they fall foul of GDPR when they access rape victims phones and devices. You need good cause to search a phone. That’s part of these privacy rights.

Other considerations

His phone may be subject to a number of additional security measures given his role so it may not be as simple as handing over his phone even if he wanted to, which could be in contravention of these? I’m assuming he has security clearances etc.

For all we know, the people who witnessed this could be idiots who are politically motivated to create a story- or so annoyed he had been in the area When they have sickVulnerable relatives that they have bitterly liked to cause more pain for home in retaliation.

It could be they confused who they had seen given the news?

Of course these are all things that could have happened but may not have happened..

The point being is that you would expect the police to have fully investigated all lines of enquires. He is innocent in the eyes of the law.

[clarethomer]

Corbyn didn’t have any more proof than his word which people chose to believe or not. Cummings apparently has irrefutable proof on his phone, I ask again, why would he choose not to share that given the trouble it’s caused? If Corbyn had had similar irrefutable proof I’m fairly sure it’d have been produced.

I’ve told you why not and I’m not sure why it’s so hard to get your head around it.

He has nothing to prove. If the police want to charge him or take action, I’m sure this would be produced.

This kangaroo court you seem to be creating with the demand to supply something he doesn’t need to as there is nothing he has to answer for in the eyes of the law.

[AndrewJB]

I would find it hilarious if this was the level our society had to operate at. If the Guardian ask someone to prove it, it must be proven....

Good to know that you have respect of our legal system and that you are happy to create kangaroo courts for the British public to decide someone's guilt. Can we get Corbyn on the stand next?

Nobody is talking about kangaroo courts. Just that it’s probably best for him to show the proof.

[clarethomer]

It certainly feels like you are not happy with our proper legal process and the fact that there isn’t enough evidence to get him into a proper court.

Asking him to prove his innocence and waive his right to privacy just so you can be satisfied he hasn’t done anything wrong.

Fortunately we live in a society where we don’t have to play to your rules and desires...

[Spijed]

It certainly feels like you are not happy with our proper legal process and the fact that there isn’t enough evidence to get him into a proper court.

Asking him to prove his innocence and waive his right to privacy just so you can be satisfied he hasn’t done anything wrong.

Fortunately we live in a society where we don’t have to play to your rules and desires...

Funny how he admitted to going to Durham at least yet was never fined....

I wonder why?

One rule for those in government.

[martin_p]

I’ve told you why not and I’m not sure why it’s so hard to get your head around it.

He has nothing to prove. If the police want to charge him or take action, I’m sure this would be produced.

This kangaroo court you seem to be creating with the demand to supply something he doesn’t need to as there is nothing he has to answer for in the eyes of the law.

It’s nothing to do with ‘the eyes of the law’ it’s about trust and leadership. Even if he had been to the north east on 19th April the worst that would happen at this stage is a small fine anyway. But if he’s lied to his employer, the country and the police then he should be gone.

[martin_p]

It certainly feels like you are not happy with our proper legal process and the fact that there isn’t enough evidence to get him into a proper court.

Asking him to prove his innocence and waive his right to privacy just so you can be satisfied he hasn’t done anything wrong.

Fortunately we live in a society where we don’t have to play to your rules and desires...

What’s private that he hasn’t told us. He said he was in London and says his phone will confirm that. No ones looking for anything over and above that.

[clarethomer]

What’s private that he hasn’t told us. He said he was in London and says his phone will confirm that. No ones looking for anything over and above that.

I give up as you just want to argue a moral argument which has no bearing on anything else other than what you think is right and wrong.

I don't need to see it. I'm not looking for him to do anything. i am happy that the police have looked into it and that this has been dealt with lawfully.

[Pstotto]

Telling that Ruth what?

[dsr]

Funny how he admitted to going to Durham at least yet was never fined....

I wonder why?

One rule for those in government.

Are you saying that there have been fines handed out to other people who did similar? Links please. Because I think you will find that there is nobody who has been fined - literally nobody - for taking their child somewhere they thought would be safer. But if you know that Cummings received favourable treatment, then let's hear the evidence.

Remember that movement of children wasn't considered a serious problem anyway. All normal weekend visiting arrangements for children with separated parents carried on as normal - there must have been a million children zipping from home to home that weekend. Well, a million and one with young master Cummings.

[martin_p]

Are you saying that there have been fines handed out to other people who did similar? Links please. Because I think you will find that there is nobody who has been fined - literally nobody - for taking their child somewhere they thought would be safer. But if you know that Cummings received favourable treatment, then let's hear the evidence.

Remember that movement of children wasn't considered a serious problem anyway. All normal weekend visiting arrangements for children with separated parents carried on as normal - there must have been a million children zipping from home to home that weekend. Well, a million and one with young master Cummings.

Yes, all with both parents suffering from the virus and travelling over 200 miles no doubt. Or maybe, just maybe, the people suffering from the virus isolated as the government asked and the children were picked up by caters without the virus. It’s just common sense really.

[dsr]

Yes, all with both parents suffering from the virus and travelling over 200 miles no doubt. Or maybe, just maybe, the people suffering from the virus isolated as the government asked and the children were picked up by caters without the virus. It’s just common sense really.

You mean no other parent in the whole country broke the rules? Well, I suppose it's possible.

I know that Cummings could have picked a name out of Yellow Pages and asked a random childminder to come and pick up his child who might well have coronavirus. It's what you would have done, no doubt. Not all parents are as trusting.

[martin_p]

You mean no other parent in the whole country broke the rules? Well, I suppose it's possible.

I know that Cummings could have picked a name out of Yellow Pages and asked a random childminder to come and pick up his child who might well have coronavirus. It's what you would have done, no doubt. Not all parents are as trusting.

No, as I’ve said on several occasions if the only people who could look after his child were in Durham they should have come and picked him up from London rather than have two infected parents travel half way across the country. It’s not rocket science is it!

[dsr]

No, as I’ve said on several occasions if the only people who could look after his child were in Durham they should have come and picked him up from London rather than have two infected parents travel half way across the country. It’s not rocket science is it!

Obviously in the eyes of the zealots of the law. there is no excuse for Mr or Mrs Cummings wanting to be with their little boy. They should have known that caring for their son was not the priority. That's understood.

Are you competent to judge the driving abilities of the family in Durham and whether they are capable, between them, of a 500 mile round trip, more or less non-stop for the second half?

I've never been a parent so I don't know how I would react if it was my child. But I strongly suspect that if I thought there was an emergency round the corner and I wasn't sure about the grey areas of the new law, my first reaction would be to do what I thought was best for the child rather than worry about the minutiae of the law. He had a decision to make - which was more important, public image or care for wife or child? He didn't choose public image.

[Greenmile]

Obviously in the eyes of the zealots of the law. there is no excuse for Mr or Mrs Cummings wanting to be with their little boy. They should have known that caring for their son was not the priority. That's understood.

Are you competent to judge the driving abilities of the family in Durham and whether they are capable, between them, of a 500 mile round trip, more or less non-stop for the second half?

I've never been a parent so I don't know how I would react if it was my child. But I strongly suspect that if I thought there was an emergency round the corner and I wasn't sure about the grey areas of the new law, my first reaction would be to do what I thought was best for the child rather than worry about the minutiae of the law. He had a decision to make - which was more important, public image or care for wife or child? He didn't choose public image.

Yes, because choosing public image would have inconvenienced him and his family a bit, whereas the only cost of option he plumped for was other people’s lives.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 1/fulltext

[dsr]

Yes, because choosing public image would have inconvenienced him and his family a bit, whereas the only cost of option he plumped for was other people’s lives.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 1/fulltext

Is that how you describe being stuck at home with a four year old child, no childcare available, and both parents possibly fatally ill? "A bit inconvenient"?

[Greenmile]

Is that how you describe being stuck at home with a four year old child, no childcare available, and both parents possibly fatally ill? "A bit inconvenient"?

No childcare available? For Dominic Cummings? In London?

How many other folk do you think found themselves in a similar situation re childcare at that time and made do, because they were following govt rules? To what extent would you accept normal folk breaking the rules and costing lives (far fewer than Cummings, of course, for the reasons explained in the Lancet link above), if it’s what they think is best for their families?

Edit - and that’s before we get into the idea that, if you have a potentially fatal, airborne, disease, the best thing for your kids is to pack them into a car with you and drive to the other end of the country.

[Quicknick]

No, he isn't. Just like all the virtue signallers on the Left.

[dsr]

No childcare available? For Dominic Cummings? In London?

How many other folk do you think found themselves in a similar situation re childcare at that time and made do, because they were following govt rules? To what extent would you accept normal folk breaking the rules and costing lives (far fewer than Cummings, of course, for the reasons explained in the Lancet link above), if it’s what they think is best for their families?

Edit - and that’s before we get into the idea that, if you have a potentially fatal, airborne, disease, the best thing for your kids is to pack them into a car with you and drive to the other end of the country.

Of course no childcare was available. Do you think there were childcare specialists available, ready and willing to take on children from coronavirus-infested households?

I do accept normal folk breaking rules, though I doubt they were costing lives. I know of one man who consistently throughout this period has visited his 90-odd year old father, suffering with dementia, because it brings stability into his confused life. Perhaps the legalese thing to do would be to let father rot and die alone, but he doesn't do that.

I just find it hard to generate the outrage demanded by the twitterati. As I said earlier, a million children were legitimately and with full government approval, being driven around the country that weekend. I can't get excited about the idea that the million were all harmless and fine and dandy and hurt no-one while young Master Cummings was the catalyst that could kill thousands. I'm not convinced by the idea that children of divorced parents are less likely to carry the disease than children of married parents.

[martin_p]

Obviously in the eyes of the zealots of the law. there is no excuse for Mr or Mrs Cummings wanting to be with their little boy. They should have known that caring for their son was not the priority. That's understood.

Are you competent to judge the driving abilities of the family in Durham and whether they are capable, between them, of a 500 mile round trip, more or less non-stop for the second half?

I've never been a parent so I don't know how I would react if it was my child. But I strongly suspect that if I thought there was an emergency round the corner and I wasn't sure about the grey areas of the new law, my first reaction would be to do what I thought was best for the child rather than worry about the minutiae of the law. He had a decision to make - which was more important, public image or care for wife or child? He didn't choose public image.

Then it has to be said, I’d think you a bit stupid. Especially if your job entailed helping to define the guidance around what to do in the event of being infected with a notifiable disease.

You’re really clutching at straws if you’re questioning the driving ability of both his parents and (I think) his sister to defend your buddy Dom, especially over a man who (according to his wife) had collapsed due to the effects of Covid less than 24 hours before driving.

I am a parent and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I would not have chosen to put my wife and child in a car and drive them non-stop (according to Cummings himself) shortly after collapsing. Are you really saying you’d drive under those circumstances rather than pick up the phone and say ‘hey dad/mum/sis, could you come and pick up the boy, we’re struggling here’?

[Zlatan]

You mean no other parent in the whole country broke the rules? Well, I suppose it's possible.

I know that Cummings could have picked a name out of Yellow Pages and asked a random childminder to come and pick up his child who might well have coronavirus. It's what you would have done, no doubt. Not all parents are as trusting.

Is that an acceptance that Cummings broke the rules, thanks for that.

We went over all this at the time, but for clarity - although it may have been judged that he did not break any laws, it was clearly viewed that the rules that he helped define were not followed.

In his situation, an apology with explanation would have gone a long way but he didn’t do that. He came up with a completely implausible reason for visiting Barnard Castle, which he claimed was a 60 mile eye test with his child in the car. Something which does not fall into line with his reason for going to Durham in the first place, the protection of his child.

[aggi]

Is that how you describe being stuck at home with a four year old child, no childcare available, and both parents possibly fatally ill? "A bit inconvenient"?

For someone who spends a lot of time on here talking down the risk of coronavirus it's a bit of a stretch suggesting that both parents were possibly fatally ill. Particularly given that when they drove to Durham one parent wasn't even ill.

[mkmel]

If both parents were possibly fatally ill why on earth were either of them driving and potentially causing a crash and loss of life?

[dsr]

For someone who spends a lot of time on here talking down the risk of coronavirus it's a bit of a stretch suggesting that both parents were possibly fatally ill. Particularly given that when they drove to Durham one parent wasn't even ill.

Are you saying it was unreasonable for anyone in April to think that coronavirus might kill them? I think the death rate then was quite a lot higher than it is now, and we knew a lot less about it.

Which parent wasn't ill? Father Cummings was not suffering too many symptoms at the time, but bearing in mind he was ill later, the chances are he was ill when he made the drive.