Cummings and goings...

[anonymous-user]

Given he’s still working and his wife is an editor at The Spectator so I’m guessing also still working, I’m betting their son has the odd nanny or two so childcare isn’t the reason for the journey. More likely nanny was poorly too, agency panicked and the st hit the fan...

[ant1973]

JagLover said:

Hippea said:

I think what he did is pushing the nature of that clause by some don’t you think?

Of course

Just pointing out it is a grey area and parents did not necessarily have the same restrictions, particularly those looking after small children.

The key word is 'possible'. The circumstances as described hardly suggest any element of impossibility. It may, however, have been a reasonable excuse so within the law. But it's the hypocrisy that stinks.

[Red 4]

Here's the legislation in force at the time;

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

Can someone explain how a 264 mile trip - as per the circumstances explained in Downing Street's sycophantic, sickening statement - fits with the law.

Clue; it doesn't.

[ArnageWRC]

The absolute nerve of them, trying to ride it out. Lots of people have been in similar situations, and have had to get on with it, by following the guidelines. This bloke doesn't think he has to, so drives 250+ miles to 'self isolate'. Okay. that sounds reasonable.......hmm
I'm sorry, no excuses are needed.....he should be gone.

'Do as we say, not as we do'.....

[paulw123]

Downing Street statement just makes it worse

[anonymous-user]

My sister and her husband both had the virus at the same time and had to stay home looking after their kids. I think this is going to backfire massively on Downing Street.

[Unknown_User]

paulw123 said:

Downing Street statement just makes it worse

Agreed.

Whoever voted for this tory Gov must be furious right now... The country's beloved nana's and grampy's have taken the brunt of this insidious virus and all the tory's can do is close ranks and protect their 'special advisors'. Utterly despicable.

[mikeiow]

Red 4 said:

Here's the legislation in force at the time;

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

Can someone explain how a 264 mile trip - as per the circumstances explained in Downing Street's sycophantic, sickening statement - fits with the law.

Clue; it doesn't.

Good job you are a solid barrister!
I’d say paragraph (d) gives some leeway, and technically, as worded, paragraph (l)
Don’t see anything specifying 264miles as a particular issue either

As I’ve said elsewhere, I dislike the man intensely, but being a Libra, I can sit on the fence all day long....if I had been in his shoes, and my sister, 264miles away, was best placed to look after my small offspring whilst my wife could get worse and I might too.....I would very likely have taken the same steps and been willing to defend them later.

Clearly you would not. & that’s fine: the more who stayed at home at that point in time, the better!

[Hippea]

It will be interesting to see the response from Starmer on this. No doubt he will be looking at the details on what the guidelines said and whether he broke them or not.

The ‘humanising’ of Cummings by the likes of Gove and Raab on Twitter it’s a bit vomit inducing I must say.

[Castrol for a knave]

Hippea said:

It will be interesting to see the response from Starmer on this. No doubt he will be looking at the details on what the guidelines said and whether he broke them or not.

The ‘humanising’ of Cummings by the likes of Gove and Raab on Twitter it’s a bit vomit inducing I must say.

The next PMQ will be interesting.

[rover 623gsi]

Unknown_User said:

paulw123 said:

Downing Street statement just makes it worse

Agreed.

Whoever voted for this tory Gov must be furious right now... The country's beloved nana's and grampy's have taken the brunt of this insidious virus and all the tory's can do is close ranks and protect their 'special advisors'. Utterly despicable.

Yep. I was annoyed before, but having read that bks from the press office makes me feel fking infuriated. The absolute fking cheek of it.

[Red 4]

mikeiow said:

Red 4 said:

Here's the legislation in force at the time;

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

Can someone explain how a 264 mile trip - as per the circumstances explained in Downing Street's sycophantic, sickening statement - fits with the law.

Clue; it doesn't.

Good job you are a solid barrister!
I’d say paragraph (d) gives some leeway, and technically, as worded, paragraph (l)
Don’t see anything specifying 264miles as a particular issue either

As I’ve said elsewhere, I dislike the man intensely, but being a Libra, I can sit on the fence all day long....if I had been in his shoes, and my sister, 264miles away, was best placed to look after my small offspring whilst my wife could get worse and I might too.....I would very likely have taken the same steps and been willing to defend them later.

Clearly you would not. & that’s fine: the more who stayed at home at that point in time, the better!

Para (6)(2)(d) relates to vulnerable persons or to provide EMERGENCY assistance.
I don't think it fits, unfortunately for Cummings.

Pars 1 relates to reasonable excuse.
Given the journey undertaken, the fact that he was conveying someone with symptoms of coronavirus almost the entire length of England, the fact that other, simpler, local solutions to Cummings situation were available, etc etc etc and that argument is very flawed.

[TRIUMPHBULLET]

I take it you can now go where you want and stay where you want without fear of being fined even if you show symptoms of covid-19.
These bds have forced ordinary people to stay home stay safe, yet the rules do not apply to them.
How many will now appear in court and state a government official has done this and suffered no legal consequences? How can a court punish some but not others for doing the same thing?
We have all seen lowlife doing what they want and getting away with it and after 9 weeks of following the guidelines I have had enough,I feel it has all been for nothing and the 'second outbreak' will be caused by others like me who have lost faith in what we are being told.

[ClaphamGT3]

Red 4 said:

mikeiow said:

Red 4 said:

Here's the legislation in force at the time;

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

Can someone explain how a 264 mile trip - as per the circumstances explained in Downing Street's sycophantic, sickening statement - fits with the law.

Clue; it doesn't.

Good job you are a solid barrister!
I’d say paragraph (d) gives some leeway, and technically, as worded, paragraph (l)
Don’t see anything specifying 264miles as a particular issue either

As I’ve said elsewhere, I dislike the man intensely, but being a Libra, I can sit on the fence all day long....if I had been in his shoes, and my sister, 264miles away, was best placed to look after my small offspring whilst my wife could get worse and I might too.....I would very likely have taken the same steps and been willing to defend them later.

Clearly you would not. & that’s fine: the more who stayed at home at that point in time, the better!

Para (6)(2)(d) relates to vulnerable persons or to provide EMERGENCY assistance.
I don't think it fits, unfortunately for Cummings.

Pars 1 relates to reasonable excuse.
Given the journey undertaken, the fact that he was conveying someone with symptoms of coronavirus almost the entire length of England, the fact that other, simpler, local solutions to Cummings situation were available, etc etc etc and that argument is very flawed.

I suspect that the stance that tomorrow's print media take to this will determine whether or not Cummings and No10 lose the narrative on this. If they do, they can put up all the logical arguments they like but he's still in trouble. If they don't, he'll tough it out

[Randy Winkman]

Evanivitch said:

voyds9 said:

We British seem to have a problem with the messenger

Was the message (lockdown) valid, if it was the advice was sound. We need to separate that from Cummings breaking it, punish him within the law.

Why should he be punished further, the law and punishment are already laid down.

For the same reason there's a parliamentary and party standards committee. Being legal and being fit for public service are not the same thing.

How many people get sacked in other lines of work without doing anything illegal?

Perhaps he will be investigated by the same people who investigated Priti Patel recently?

[Hoofy]

Evanivitch said:

So Government rules allow us to drive as long as we don't leave the car? News to me!

Certainly, I don't have any problems with the masses of traffic in car parks by beaches and in country parks. The problem is when they all get out of their cars.

[Brave Fart]

Red 4 said:

Can someone explain how a 264 mile trip - as per the circumstances explained in Downing Street's sycophantic, sickening statement - fits with the law.

I suppose if one was representing one's client, Mr Cummings, in court, one would argue that:

• the 264 mile point is irrelevant, since the Regulations make no mention of distance
• Mr Cummings was not unwell at the time but feared that he and/or his wife soon might be
• seeking medical assistance is expressly stated as a reasonable excuse in the Regulations
• assisting a vulnerable person (a child, in this case) is also permitted by the Regulations
• Government guidance separate to the Regulations is just that, an expression of official opinion

That seems to be the path the PM's office is following.

[abzmike]

I wonder which unfortunate sod is fronting the press briefing this afternoon...

[rover 623gsi]

"Owing to his wife being infected with suspected coronavirus and the high likelihood that he would himself become unwell, it was essential for Dominic Cummings to ensure his young child could be properly cared for. His sister and nieces had volunteered to help so he went to a house near to but separate from his extended family in case their help was needed. His sister shopped for the family and left everything outside. At no stage was he or his family spoken to by the police about this matter, as is being reported. His actions were in line with coronavirus guidelines. Mr Cummings believes he behaved reasonably and legally."

we're always being told by the govt that the vast majority of people who get the virus only suffer from mild symptoms, and the evidence backs this up. Further, neither Cummings nor his wife appear to be in any of the known vulnerable categories so i'm not sure why Downing St are saying there was a 'high likelihood' that he'd become unwell?

I also note that the carefully worded sentence 'At no stage was he or his family spoken to by the police about this matter, as is being reported.' manages to just about claim that they are not contradicting the statement by the Durham Constabulary: "On Tuesday, March 31, our officers were made aware of reports that an individual had travelled from London to Durham and was present at an address in the city. Officers made contact with the owners of that address who confirmed that the individual in question was present and was self-isolating in part of the house.

....

wkers!

[Hippea]

Brave Fart said:

I suppose if one was representing one's client, Mr Cummings, in court, one would argue that:

• the 264 mile point is irrelevant, since the Regulations make no mention of distance
• Mr Cummings was not unwell at the time but feared that he and/or his wife soon might be
• seeking medical assistance is expressly stated as a reasonable excuse in the Regulations
• assisting a vulnerable person (a child, in this case) is also permitted by the Regulations
• Government guidance separate to the Regulations is just that, an expression of official opinion

That seems to be the path the PM's office is following.

That may be the case for if he is being held account in a court of law.

I think what will be more telling is his/governments trial by the media and public which will determine the outcome. Whether he broke the law doesn’t matter as much with this more whether he took the complete and utter piss.