Whatever people may think about Dominic Cummings and his actions,i really can't see how describing his autistic 4 year-old child as a sprog adds anything to the debate whatsoever,the child is an entirely innocent party in all this.cblantfanclub wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:16 amComment on the HIGNFY page:
"Don’t judge, quite believable that not a single person in London can stand Cummings enough to want to even take care of his sprog."
Covid-19
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Covid-19
Re: Covid-19
The point of the lockdown law is that you are allowed to drive to Durham if it is reasonable to do so. If breaking the law is to be proved, it has to be proved that driving to Durham was not reasonable and there were valid alternatives. Burden of proof on the accuser. The accuser has made his case, the defence has put forward his argument, so it's the accuser's job to disprove the defence's argument. The defence doesn't have to prove innocence; the prosecution has to prove guilt.Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:26 amThats what I want to know. Cummings must have assessed this before deciding to go to Durham so those defending him please provide this info because until you do there is no evidence to support that their trip to Durham was justified because of a threat to life for their child
Come on DSR you normally demand good evidence but all of a sudden you are happy to just take Cummings word
If it comes to prosecution, Cummings doesn't even have to prove that he made the best choice. The prosecution might prove beyond doubt that many more local relatives could have provided twice the childcare and the child would have been happier than if he had gone to Durham; but if they can't prove that Cummings genuinely thought it reasonable to do what he did, then he won't be found guilty.
Many parents in similar circumstances would get a bit of sympathy. "Well, he may have made the wrong choice, but with a sick wife and feeling like he might be coming down with it and fearing they might both die, what's man to do?". Cummings certainly isn't getting the sympathy vote.
-
- Posts: 12389
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5217 times
- Has Liked: 923 times
Re: Covid-19
Nope the reasonable justification is threat to life. Cummings has broken the lockdown rules unless he has a justifiable reason (threat to life) and the onus is on him to prove it.dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:40 amThe point of the lockdown law is that you are allowed to drive to Durham if it is reasonable to do so. If breaking the law is to be proved, it has to be proved that driving to Durham was not reasonable and there were valid alternatives. Burden of proof on the accuser. The accuser has made his case, the defence has put forward his argument, so it's the accuser's job to disprove the defence's argument. The defence doesn't have to prove innocence; the prosecution has to prove guilt.
If it comes to prosecution, Cummings doesn't even have to prove that he made the best choice. The prosecution might prove beyond doubt that many more local relatives could have provided twice the childcare and the child would have been happier than if he had gone to Durham; but if they can't prove that Cummings genuinely thought it reasonable to do what he did, then he won't be found guilty.
Many parents in similar circumstances would get a bit of sympathy. "Well, he may have made the wrong choice, but with a sick wife and feeling like he might be coming down with it and fearing they might both die, what's man to do?". Cummings certainly isn't getting the sympathy vote.
Its as simple as that and you and one or two others on here look pretty stupid and thats being kind.
When you can show me proof there was a threat to life to his child by staying put in his London home as per govt instruction I'll have a discussion with you but until then youre just p*ssing in the wind and everyone can see you doing it
Re: Covid-19
It's been a very arrogant and self-entitled response to the situation though. He's made sympathy harder to evoke. It was mentioned yesterday that if he'd have held has hands up and offered something approaching an apology, it would have played out better for him.dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:40 am
Many parents in similar circumstances would get a bit of sympathy. "Well, he may have made the wrong choice, but with a sick wife and feeling like he might be coming down with it and fearing they might both die, what's man to do?". Cummings certainly isn't getting the sympathy vote.
And that's before we even get to the castle.
Re: Covid-19
You're going to be amazed when you find out about this Jeremy Corbyn bloke.CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 10:42 pm
In my many years following politics, I can’t remember anyone triggering as much hate as Cummings. Just an observation.
These 4 users liked this post: dermotdermot Bordeauxclaret Lord Beamish Greenmile
Re: Covid-19
I think you have a different definition of "threat to life". you're thinking of a much more immediate threat.
We have a situation. Two adults and a small child in the house. One parent has a deadly disease, the other parent believes (correctly, as it happens) that he has the same deadly disease. Is there a threat to life to the child?
You presumably say no. I say yes. That's all there is to it.
Incidentally, I have re-read the original legislation, and can't find the reference to "threat to life". There is a subsection on the non-exhaustive list of exceptions that says reasonable includes "to provide care or assistance ... to a vulnerable person". That is incontrovertibly a valid reason for leaving home.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020 ... ion/6/made
We have a situation. Two adults and a small child in the house. One parent has a deadly disease, the other parent believes (correctly, as it happens) that he has the same deadly disease. Is there a threat to life to the child?
You presumably say no. I say yes. That's all there is to it.
Incidentally, I have re-read the original legislation, and can't find the reference to "threat to life". There is a subsection on the non-exhaustive list of exceptions that says reasonable includes "to provide care or assistance ... to a vulnerable person". That is incontrovertibly a valid reason for leaving home.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020 ... ion/6/made
-
- Posts: 16936
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6972 times
- Has Liked: 1487 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Covid-19
Strange that on many other occasions you’ve played down the threat to life, particularly to young and healthy people.dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 1:00 amI think you have a different definition of "threat to life". you're thinking of a much more immediate threat.
We have a situation. Two adults and a small child in the house. One parent has a deadly disease, the other parent believes (correctly, as it happens) that he has the same deadly disease. Is there a threat to life to the child?
You presumably say no. I say yes. That's all there is to it.
Incidentally, I have re-read the original legislation, and can't find the reference to "threat to life". There is a subsection on the non-exhaustive list of exceptions that says reasonable includes "to provide care or assistance ... to a vulnerable person". That is incontrovertibly a valid reason for leaving home.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020 ... ion/6/made
In fact, do you think there was more threat to that child’s life from Covid-19 or a road traffic accident occurring during the 250 mile trip? Looking forward to the answer.
-
- Posts: 12389
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5217 times
- Has Liked: 923 times
Re: Covid-19
A child is not classed as vulnerable in Covid terms and the reason vulnerable people are allowed to be moved is because there is deemed to be an immediate threat to life for them catching the virus (this is elderly people are those with underlying health conditions)dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 1:00 amI think you have a different definition of "threat to life". you're thinking of a much more immediate threat.
We have a situation. Two adults and a small child in the house. One parent has a deadly disease, the other parent believes (correctly, as it happens) that he has the same deadly disease. Is there a threat to life to the child?
You presumably say no. I say yes. That's all there is to it.
Incidentally, I have re-read the original legislation, and can't find the reference to "threat to life". There is a subsection on the non-exhaustive list of exceptions that says reasonable includes "to provide care or assistance ... to a vulnerable person". That is incontrovertibly a valid reason for leaving home.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020 ... ion/6/made
Even then what the the guidelines allow for is for them to be moved away from those infected to another home. I hate to break it to you but the child was not moved to another home away from the person with the virus.
Mate your embarrassing yourself and we haven't even bothered with his day trip to the castle his 2nd visit later in April and the sightings of him in Durham in early May
Re: Covid-19
Good for you mate. Hypothetically obviously. And with a fair slice of reviosionism.Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:35 amI would do my best to look after my wife and child in our own home whilst taking as many measures as possible to stay safe and isolate my child from my wife
My contingency would have been to ensure the closest family member possible would be available to come to me and collect my child if needed
Im not saying this to prove a point but no way would I have considered lumping us all in a car and going to stay in someone elses house at the other end of the country
Anyhow, I dont mean to defend cummings descision as such. I just think there has been a massive over reaction to it.
I'll stop short of saying its politically motivated, because I read the Kyle Walker thread. I just think it's easy to get the pitch forks out when it's someone in the limelight.
I'd wager a large ammount of money that most people condemning others have been out of the house unnecessarily at some point during the pandemic.
Re: Covid-19
An autistic child might be deemed as vulnerable if both parents are too Ill to get out of bedDevils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 1:08 amA child is not classed as vulnerable in Covid terms and the reason vulnerable people are allowed to be moved is because there is deemed to be an immediate threat to life for them catching the virus (this is elderly people are those with underlying health conditions)
Even then what the the guidelines allow for is for them to be moved away from those infected to another home. I hate to break it to you but the child was not moved to another home away from the person with the virus.
Mate your embarrassing yourself and we haven't even bothered with his day trip to the castle his 2nd visit later in April and the sightings of him in Durham in early May
-
- Posts: 12389
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5217 times
- Has Liked: 923 times
Re: Covid-19
Im not picking on argument with you as I can see your giving a view and not just defending a team like some of them are.Damo wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 1:10 amGood for you mate. Hypothetically obviously. And with a fair slice of reviosionism.
Anyhow, I dont mean to defend cummings descision as such. I just think there has been a massive over reaction to it.
I'll stop short of saying its politically motivated, because I read the Kyle Walker thread. I just think it's easy to get the pitch forks out when it's someone in the limelight.
I'd wager a large ammount of money that most people condemning others have been out of the house unnecessarily at some point during the pandemic.
I think its become more about the lies and the hypocrisy rather than the actual misdemeanor (which is a common theme) Had he held his hands up and come clean there would have been a valid argument to have around should he keep his job.
Its the lies and the cover ups that has made this the story it is
This user liked this post: Damo
Re: Covid-19
Weren't you saying the virus poses an extremely low risk to children on the going back to school thread?dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 1:00 amI think you have a different definition of "threat to life". you're thinking of a much more immediate threat.
We have a situation. Two adults and a small child in the house. One parent has a deadly disease, the other parent believes (correctly, as it happens) that he has the same deadly disease. Is there a threat to life to the child?
You presumably say no. I say yes. That's all there is to it.
Incidentally, I have re-read the original legislation, and can't find the reference to "threat to life". There is a subsection on the non-exhaustive list of exceptions that says reasonable includes "to provide care or assistance ... to a vulnerable person". That is incontrovertibly a valid reason for leaving home.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020 ... ion/6/made
-
- Posts: 12389
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5217 times
- Has Liked: 923 times
Re: Covid-19
Any young child could be classed as vulnerable if both parents were unable to get out of bed and look after them.
The point is this wasn't the case and had they become that ill there is nothing to suggest family in London couldn't have looked after the child
If someone can show me why the family in London could not help out I'll be more sympathetic.
Re: Covid-19
The closest family member apparently was his uncle, Lord Justice Laws, but he was unavailable because he was dying of (or with) coronavirus in hospital. His daughter was also around, though in the circumstances I think even you would accept that she couldn't guarantee to be available 24 hours a day. Cummings also has an apparently single brother-in-law; that's something I can relate to, being an unmarried brother-in-law. I am uncle to five children; I am sure that if offered the chance to give up my job to undertake 24-hour childcare, I would have done all possible to suggest that one or other sets of grandparents would be a better offer. I suspect the parents would agree!Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:35 amMy contingency would have been to ensure the closest family member possible would be available to come to me and collect my child if needed
Any more relatives you want me to look up?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... nds-resign
Re: Covid-19
This is definitely my favourite take on it so far
These 2 users liked this post: Tall Paul fatboy47
-
- Posts: 12389
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5217 times
- Has Liked: 923 times
Re: Covid-19
All this story does is report is uncles death.dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 1:20 amThe closest family member apparently was his uncle, Lord Justice Laws, but he was unavailable because he was dying of (or with) coronavirus in hospital. His daughter was also around, though in the circumstances I think even you would accept that she couldn't guarantee to be available 24 hours a day. Cummings also has an apparently single brother-in-law; that's something I can relate to, being an unmarried brother-in-law. I am uncle to five children; I am sure that if offered the chance to give up my job to undertake 24-hour childcare, I would have done all possible to suggest that one or other sets of grandparents would be a better offer. I suspect the parents would agree!
Any more relatives you want me to look up?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... nds-resign
The mothers brother could have looked after his nephew. Just cos you wouldnt be prepared to look after your niece or nephew when you brother or sister and spouse were at deaths door isnt proof that this wasnt an option.
I feel sorry for you family and hope their lives dont ever depend on you
Re: Covid-19
You really have a very limited understanding of how family life works.Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 1:33 amAll this story does is report is uncles death.
The mothers brother could have looked after his nephew. Just cos you wouldnt be prepared to look after your niece or nephew when you brother or sister and spouse were at deaths door isnt proof that this wasnt an option.
I feel sorry for you family and hope their lives dont ever depend on you
Here are the two likely options. I'm sorry I don't know the family as intimately as you would like, but suppose these are two options.
1. Give the child to an uncle who has a full time job and doesn't want the child and doesn't know the child particularly well and has no experience in childcare and lives 10 miles away, and mother can't go.
2. Give the child to a grandparent or aunt who does know the child and wants the child and wouldn't have to give up work and is experienced in childcare and lives 250 miles away, and mother will be able to go too.
To you, it's open and shut. Go for the nearer one. To other people, especially parents, the other factors are worth considering. It's not as if the distance makes a difference for whether it's a breach of rule or not - it it was wrong to go to Durham, it would equally have been wrong to go next door. Either one would have committed the act of leaving the house.
Now, where you are going badly wrong is in assuming that because brother-in-law was not the preferred option, you assume he would be useless in all circumstances. That isn't necessarily so. It's possible that the second-best option isn't an entirely-useless option; the second-best option may be an acceptable-in-an-emergency option. But acceptable-in-an-emergency is not the target this particular family chose; it would have been your choice, but not everyone's.
By the way, that comment about "soory for my family" is extraordinarily arrogant and patronisng, even for you. I know that being an all-round clever dick is part of your screen persona, but tone it down a bit.
And it's interesting that
is not covered by the death of the parent of one of them. Sympathy from you is clearly hard to come by.Devils_Advocate wrote:"If someone can show me why the family in London could not help out I'll be more sympathetic.
Re: Covid-19
Cummings
This bandwagon of out of proportion immensity is really gathering pace .
Kyle Walkers like fck yessss.
This bandwagon of out of proportion immensity is really gathering pace .
Kyle Walkers like fck yessss.
Re: Covid-19
The thing is, in regards to looking after children whilst isolating, they had exactly the same choice, if they read the government advice correctly in relation to that specific area.
This user liked this post: Lord Beamish
Re: Covid-19
I probably worded it badly. It's meant to say I don't think they have anything else.
If they do, and it's damaging, then the PM needs to go, for being so naive to get caught out by the oldest trick in the book. Surely he would have been100% certain there was nothing else before backing him so publicly
Re: Covid-19
Nope.
I’ve been in contact with dozens of people with coronavirus. I’ve had to arrest people with symptoms. I’ve removed dead bodies from addresses where the cause of death was suspected to be coronavirus.
I’ve then gone home to my wife and two young children. Both of them had high temperatures out of nowhere in March, for 2-3 days, before it disappeared. I’ve no doubt that I passed on the virus to my kids. Two of my colleagues have been on ventilators.
My nearest child support is Shropshire and then Lancashire. I live in Kent.
Every time I went to work and came home again I was petrified at putting my kids at risk. Petrified.
But did I drive them to the opposite end of the country? No. I followed the government advice. And like millions of others, we battled on, with no other option.
This is why people are ****** off.
These 9 users liked this post: BurningBeard Zlatan longsidepies Stacky_claret FactualFrank Lord Beamish Swizzlestick tiger76 TVC15
Re: Covid-19
I know how difficult your job is, and fully appreciate what you and your colleagues do. I couldn't do it nowadays.TsarBomba wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 7:14 amNope.
I’ve been in contact with dozens of people with coronavirus. I’ve had to arrest people with symptoms. I’ve removed dead bodies from addresses where the cause of death was suspected to be coronavirus.
I’ve then gone home to my wife and two young children. Both of them had high temperatures out of nowhere in March, for 2-3 days, before it disappeared. I’ve no doubt that I passed on the virus to my kids. Two of my colleagues have been on ventilators.
My nearest child support is Shropshire and then Lancashire. I live in Kent.
Every time I went to work and came home again I was petrified at putting my kids at risk. Petrified.
But did I drive them to the opposite end of the country? No. I followed the government advice. And like millions of others, we battled on, with no other option.
This is why people are ****** off.
But, there was an option, if you read the advice below, especially the paragraph, about living with children you can see that it allows you to ignore any of the rules mentioned before that paragraph if you have children in the household.
Keep up the good work, and get yourself transferred to a proper force up north
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -infection
Re: Covid-19
I’d love to, but the wife has put her foot down!Grumps wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 7:24 amI know how difficult your job is, and fully appreciate what you and your colleagues do. I couldn't do it nowadays.
But, there was an option, if you read the advice below, especially the paragraph, about living with children you can see that it allows you to ignore any of the rules mentioned before that paragraph if you have children in the household.
Keep up the good work, and get yourself transferred to a proper force up north
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -infection
-
- Posts: 3181
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:22 pm
- Been Liked: 1773 times
- Has Liked: 273 times
Re: Covid-19
I watched the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges on the BBC this morning. He seemed to be arguing that if Cummings was at Barnard Castle with his family on 19 April, there was nothing in the rules to limit how far you went for your daily exercise.
I might be missing something, but if he was well at that point (he’d returned to work in London on 14 April), then what was he still doing in the North East? I’m pretty sure I read that you weren’t allowed to live in second homes or stay with relatives.
I might be missing something, but if he was well at that point (he’d returned to work in London on 14 April), then what was he still doing in the North East? I’m pretty sure I read that you weren’t allowed to live in second homes or stay with relatives.
Re: Covid-19
Reports circulating this morning that there is a Dom Cummings lookalike who lives in Bernard Castle.
He is called David Harper and runs an antique shop and works for the BBC,
He says roundabout the time Cummings was reportedly spotted there people stopped him to say was he Cummings.
Interesting development but David Harper looks like he is going to be famous
He is called David Harper and runs an antique shop and works for the BBC,
He says roundabout the time Cummings was reportedly spotted there people stopped him to say was he Cummings.
Interesting development but David Harper looks like he is going to be famous
Re: Covid-19
The PM needs to go because his aide broke a rule and your speculating he had the wool pulled over his eyes. Wow this is desperate delusion with 0% chance of happening.Grumps wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 6:54 amI probably worded it badly. It's meant to say I don't think they have anything else.
If they do, and it's damaging, then the PM needs to go, for being so naive to get caught out by the oldest trick in the book. Surely he would have been100% certain there was nothing else before backing him so publicly
We should cancel Brexit possibly as well? And have a general election? All sounds like lefty dreams and delusions doesn't it.
Re: Covid-19
Reading some of the posts from overnight, there seems to be a suggestion that his child was autistic, is this correct? I haven't seen it anywhere else
If he was, and that made the child a vulnerable person, then then guidelines say they can be removed from the house to live elsewhere
It would also explain why they didn't want any Tom dick or Harry looking after him.
If he was, and that made the child a vulnerable person, then then guidelines say they can be removed from the house to live elsewhere
It would also explain why they didn't want any Tom dick or Harry looking after him.
Re: Covid-19
He was famous anyway... If you watch bargain huntpaulatky wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 8:01 amReports circulating this morning that there is a Dom Cummings lookalike who lives in Bernard Castle.
He is called David Harper and runs an antique shop and works for the BBC,
He says roundabout the time Cummings was reportedly spotted there people stopped him to say was he Cummings.
Interesting development but David Harper looks like he is going to be famous
Re: Covid-19
Corbyn preferred to wait until there was a democratic consensus before moving forward, but that wouldn’t have applied in a time of crisis.
Hilarious that you swallowed the propaganda that his preference for consensus made him a ditherer.
I suppose next you’ll insist that you never read newspapers - so on what evidence did you reach the conclusion he was “full of indecision”?
Re: Covid-19
Rubbish.
I am in as close to exactly the same situation as Cummings. We have a young child with Autism; we live 100 miles from nearest family member; my partner had Covid-19 symptoms in March. In addition to this I was meant to be shielding, but we did not consider at any time that it would be best for our child for us to travel to anywhere BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE RULES. We bedded down and rode it through, with support from our local community groups for medication and supplies. We had discussed what to do if it got worse, and my partners parents were on standby to collect our child should that be necessary.
Just to add, anyone who has a child with Autism knows that routine and familiarity are essential for the child to feel safe, Cummings did not follow his instinct as a parent in that respect.
Cummings saw himself as superior to everyone else, and he should go for the good of the country. If Johnson continues to support him he should go too.
This user liked this post: CombatClaret
-
- Posts: 5734
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2835 times
- Has Liked: 141 times
Re: Covid-19
"The point of the lockdown law is that you are allowed to drive to Durham if it is reasonable to do so"dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:40 amThe point of the lockdown law is that you are allowed to drive to Durham if it is reasonable to do so. If breaking the law is to be proved, it has to be proved that driving to Durham was not reasonable and there were valid alternatives. Burden of proof on the accuser. The accuser has made his case, the defence has put forward his argument, so it's the accuser's job to disprove the defence's argument. The defence doesn't have to prove innocence; the prosecution has to prove guilt.
If it comes to prosecution, Cummings doesn't even have to prove that he made the best choice. The prosecution might prove beyond doubt that many more local relatives could have provided twice the childcare and the child would have been happier than if he had gone to Durham; but if they can't prove that Cummings genuinely thought it reasonable to do what he did, then he won't be found guilty.
Many parents in similar circumstances would get a bit of sympathy. "Well, he may have made the wrong choice, but with a sick wife and feeling like he might be coming down with it and fearing they might both die, what's man to do?". Cummings certainly isn't getting the sympathy vote.
If we're getting technical about it, this is wrong, because all of the examples of what is reasonable given in the law are pre-phrased by the word "need". And the guidance talked about exceptions for parents with children if it is "not possible" to follow the rules. Necessity and impossibility are not the same thing as it being *desirable* from the parents perspective to do something, much less to do something based on an apprehension of circumstances that didnt, yet, exist. And none of this made it reasonable for a parent to take a journey that almost certainly made it inevitable they would need to stop for fuel or the child to go to the toilet.
As for reasonableness - you imply it's a subjective test - "did Cummings believe it was reasonable". You're mistaken there too. It's an objective test based on the reasonable bystander. And given the point about the word "need" appearing in the legislation, the onus would be on Cummings to demonstrate why Durham was the only *possible* option.
I dont think what Cummings did is the most heinous thing in the world- I have very young and vulnerable kids and I know how worried my wife or I were (and still are) about caring for them if we fell ill. But by any normal reading of the law and guidance, it is quite borderline a technical offence and it's certainly unbecoming of a core member of the government who imposed the rules on everyone else. And the real scandal here isnt that (an apology early might have put this to bed) it's the way the entire machinery of government has been repurposed to reconstruct the rules and guidance to protect the government and their own - coming on the back of months when we've all been told to err towards selflessness not selfishness.
Everyone can see that's what's going on, and it's not an acceptable way for a government - of any colour- to behave.
These 9 users liked this post: TsarBomba Zlatan Swizzlestick longsidepies BurningBeard Lord Beamish lakedistrictclaret Rileybobs tiger76
-
- Posts: 4086
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1512 times
- Has Liked: 583 times
Re: Covid-19
dsr’s transition from ‘it barely affects children and healthy adults’ to ‘THREAT TO LIFE’ is quite something. Almost as if his ideology changes depending on the subject matter.
Re: Covid-19
If everyone did what Cummings has done, there would have been no lockdown. You are trying to justify someone flouting the rules during a national crisis.
It shows that Cummings and his part time underling Johnson haven’t followed the science. They have a belief in exceptionalism. The rules apply to everyone, except them. And that British people are uniquely able to “take it on the chin” rather than spending money on dealing with the virus properly. The actual cost of this idiocy is a huge death toll, and record deficit. They’ve pulled defeat from the jaws of victory.
These 2 users liked this post: Zlatan longsidepies
Re: Covid-19
Let’s not forget this bloke had a particular viewpoint early in the crisis...
And there are people defending this excuse for a human being.
And there are people defending this excuse for a human being.
Re: Covid-19
For balance, I recall it was widely reported that Cummings was pushing for earlier lockdown and stricter social distancing. A distraction though because he should still be sacked.
Re: Covid-19
Absolutely 100%, BJ has misread the mood of the nation on this 1. No way he can justify what Cummings did.
But what is also 100% is what a gutter press we have. Camping outside someone's house because he broke lockdown rules, whilst themselves, breaking the lockdown rules.
That big telly they had playing outside his house was a joke. They've got a little kid in the house ffs.
But what is also 100% is what a gutter press we have. Camping outside someone's house because he broke lockdown rules, whilst themselves, breaking the lockdown rules.
That big telly they had playing outside his house was a joke. They've got a little kid in the house ffs.
Re: Covid-19
So explain to me why the sick wife had to travel?dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:40 amThe point of the lockdown law is that you are allowed to drive to Durham if it is reasonable to do so. If breaking the law is to be proved, it has to be proved that driving to Durham was not reasonable and there were valid alternatives. Burden of proof on the accuser. The accuser has made his case, the defence has put forward his argument, so it's the accuser's job to disprove the defence's argument. The defence doesn't have to prove innocence; the prosecution has to prove guilt.
If it comes to prosecution, Cummings doesn't even have to prove that he made the best choice. The prosecution might prove beyond doubt that many more local relatives could have provided twice the childcare and the child would have been happier than if he had gone to Durham; but if they can't prove that Cummings genuinely thought it reasonable to do what he did, then he won't be found guilty.
Many parents in similar circumstances would get a bit of sympathy. "Well, he may have made the wrong choice, but with a sick wife and feeling like he might be coming down with it and fearing they might both die, what's man to do?". Cummings certainly isn't getting the sympathy vote.
-
- Posts: 10338
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3342 times
- Has Liked: 1965 times
Re: Covid-19
Looks like a precedence has been set.
Re: Covid-19
So let me get this correct.
Cummings wife had Covid symptoms.
Johnson said yesterday they thought that they were going to become incapacitated - (at exactly the same time ?)
Is there any proof that either were incapacitated at all - never mind at the same time ?
Given she already had the symptoms it seems strange that given she was incapacitated that instead of going to hospital or seeing whether she was going to get even worse that they get in the car for a 4 or 5 hour journey.
Yet when they are in Durham they self isolate in a house by themselves....near family on hand just in case but not actually needed - why did their crystal ball that told them they would be incapacitated not also tell them they would not need their family ?
And why did their family who lived in London and who have been quoted as saying how close Dominic Cummings was to them not be “close” enough to help out in this emergency that never actually happened ?
Still lots of holes in what they are saying and pretty indefensible to say the least. It won’t go away till he resigns and the media will find out more and keep on digging until he does.
The real danger is that this will continue to dominate the headlines whilst the government are trying to get much more important things across to the public - and even more of a danger many people might just think they have had enough of adhering to lockdown because of the way the government have twisted the rules to suit one of their own - it’s beyond hypocritical.
Cummings wife had Covid symptoms.
Johnson said yesterday they thought that they were going to become incapacitated - (at exactly the same time ?)
Is there any proof that either were incapacitated at all - never mind at the same time ?
Given she already had the symptoms it seems strange that given she was incapacitated that instead of going to hospital or seeing whether she was going to get even worse that they get in the car for a 4 or 5 hour journey.
Yet when they are in Durham they self isolate in a house by themselves....near family on hand just in case but not actually needed - why did their crystal ball that told them they would be incapacitated not also tell them they would not need their family ?
And why did their family who lived in London and who have been quoted as saying how close Dominic Cummings was to them not be “close” enough to help out in this emergency that never actually happened ?
Still lots of holes in what they are saying and pretty indefensible to say the least. It won’t go away till he resigns and the media will find out more and keep on digging until he does.
The real danger is that this will continue to dominate the headlines whilst the government are trying to get much more important things across to the public - and even more of a danger many people might just think they have had enough of adhering to lockdown because of the way the government have twisted the rules to suit one of their own - it’s beyond hypocritical.
This user liked this post: tiger76
Re: Covid-19
Just let me get this right......is his child autistic,? If he is, do you still stand by the argument that anyone could have looked after the child?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 8:39 amIf everyone did what Cummings has done, there would have been no lockdown. You are trying to justify someone flouting the rules during a national crisis.
It shows that Cummings and his part time underling Johnson haven’t followed the science. They have a belief in exceptionalism. The rules apply to everyone, except them. And that British people are uniquely able to “take it on the chin” rather than spending money on dealing with the virus properly. The actual cost of this idiocy is a huge death toll, and record deficit. They’ve pulled defeat from the jaws of victory.
Re: Covid-19
One of the reasons the close family in London was not able to help was because Cummings' uncle was dying in hospital and his immediate family had other things on their mind.TVC15 wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 9:09 amSo let me get this correct.
Cummings wife had Covid symptoms.
Johnson said yesterday they thought that they were going to become incapacitated - (at exactly the same time ?)
Is there any proof that either were incapacitated at all - never mind at the same time ?
Given she already had the symptoms it seems strange that given she was incapacitated that instead of going to hospital or seeing whether she was going to get even worse that they get in the car for a 4 or 5 hour journey.
Yet when they are in Durham they self isolate in a house by themselves....near family on hand just in case but not actually needed - why did their crystal ball that told them they would be incapacitated not also tell them they would not need their family ?
And why did their family who lived in London and who have been quoted as saying how close Dominic Cummings was to them not be “close” enough to help out in this emergency that never actually happened ?
Still lots of holes in what they are saying and pretty indefensible to say the least. It won’t go away till he resigns and the media will find out more and keep on digging until he does.
The real danger is that this will continue to dominate the headlines whilst the government are trying to get much more important things across to the public - and even more of a danger many people might just think they have had enough of adhering to lockdown because of the way the government have twisted the rules to suit one of their own - it’s beyond hypocritical.
Re: Covid-19
For the reason highlighted it should have been enough to sack him or at the very least suspend him until the dust settled.TVC15 wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 9:09 amThe real danger is that this will continue to dominate the headlines whilst the government are trying to get much more important things across to the public - and even more of a danger many people might just think they have had enough of adhering to lockdown because of the way the government have twisted the rules to suit one of their own - it’s beyond hypocritical.
I’ve been very scathing about Cummings on this thread and I want him out, that said - a bit of humility yesterday would have gone a long way but it’s the attitude that he’s better than the rest of us and the rules don’t apply in the same way as most of us that stinks.
-
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Re: Covid-19
“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 9:01 amIn some ways you’ve got to admire his slavish devotion to the cause.
George Santayana
This user liked this post: Zlatan
Re: Covid-19
I believe his child is on the spectrum. The best place for the child was at home I’m familiar surroundings like I stated further up this thread.
Zlatan wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 8:16 amRubbish.
I am in as close to exactly the same situation as Cummings. We have a young child with Autism; we live 100 miles from nearest family member; my partner had Covid-19 symptoms in March. In addition to this I was meant to be shielding, but we did not consider at any time that it would be best for our child for us to travel to anywhere BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE RULES. We bedded down and rode it through, with support from our local community groups for medication and supplies. We had discussed what to do if it got worse, and my partners parents were on standby to collect our child should that be necessary.
Just to add, anyone who has a child with Autism knows that routine and familiarity are essential for the child to feel safe, Cummings did not follow his instinct as a parent in that respect.
Cummings saw himself as superior to everyone else, and he should go for the good of the country. If Johnson continues to support him he should go too.
-
- Posts: 13555
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3119 times
- Has Liked: 3841 times
Re: Covid-19
Would imagine Boris is pretty disappointed to have this to deal with. As I’ve said before, my opinion will change if he’s proven to have visited that castle or made multiple visits. Having read the quotes, I’m not so sure about either. All sounds a bit “I’m sure I saw him, it looked like him”. Boris will no doubt know the truth and have made a judgment based on that, but his views will obviously have been swayed by the fact he’ll have seen him working 16hrs a day alongside him throughout this crisis and that he owes him a debt of gratitude for helping him win two elections.Murger wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 8:48 amAbsolutely 100%, BJ has misread the mood of the nation on this 1. No way he can justify what Cummings did.
But what is also 100% is what a gutter press we have. Camping outside someone's house because he broke lockdown rules, whilst themselves, breaking the lockdown rules.
That big telly they had playing outside his house was a joke. They've got a little kid in the house ffs.
As for the gutter press, totally agree. I personally think their actions are far more dangerous in terms of spreading the virus than anything he did. Total hypocrisy. If someone put that TV outside my house for a publicity stunt, with my 4 year old child in bed, I’d want to go and take a sledgehammer to it.
Cannot imagine how scary it must be for a 4 year old boy to see those crowds outside his house.
This user liked this post: Bfcboyo
-
- Posts: 4388
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1826 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
Re: Covid-19
A very experience barrister disagrees somewhat on the burden of proof given events:dsr wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2020 12:40 amThe point of the lockdown law is that you are allowed to drive to Durham if it is reasonable to do so. If breaking the law is to be proved, it has to be proved that driving to Durham was not reasonable and there were valid alternatives. Burden of proof on the accuser. The accuser has made his case, the defence has put forward his argument, so it's the accuser's job to disprove the defence's argument. The defence doesn't have to prove innocence; the prosecution has to prove guilt.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 provide that it is an offence for a person to leave the place where they are living *without reasonable excuse*.
It is agreed that he left the place where he was living. The prosecution can prove that part of the offence.
There is then (at least) an evidential burden on the accused to demonstrate an *objectively* reasonable excuse.
So far, there has been no evidence offered at all.
It can only be said that Cummings was not in breach of the law if he presents at least *some* evidence to support the claim that his actions were reasonable.
This evidence would have to include, at the very least, a full account of exactly what he did and why he did it.
No such account has been offered to the public. Nor to any of the ministers, MPs or Attorney Generals rushing to declare no legal wrongdoing.
This is why, on the basis of what the public has been told, it is impossible to say no offence has been committed
Last edited by CombatClaret on Mon May 25, 2020 9:38 am, edited 2 times in total.