As I've said all along - and as the government have said - guidelines are guidelines, law is law.
The Police enforce the law. Not guidelines.
If you judge something to be right for your situation that is against guidelines but within the law then that's your choice. The Police etc won't and shouldn't enforce guidelines and I've criticised them if they've tried to.
The guidelines do not say “you should self-isolate if you have coronavirus symptoms unless you think you shouldn’t”.
Your position is ridiculous. Take a step back.
Guidelines are not law. Law is law. My position is my position.
As I've said I will state my own position not the governments. If my position differs from the governments then that just proves that.
7% swing to Thatcher in London and 6% in the South but just 2% in the North East ie the reverse of 2019
No spoilers please! I’m going to watch it on iPlayer and I don’t know who wins in the end.
Well all I will say is when Callaghan won his surprise re election win against the odds it looks like Ted Heath is going to lead a bid to topple Thatcher and regain the Tory leadership he lost 4 years ago
Boris needs to reassert his authority and fast. The lockdown deniers in the cabinet and beyond are using the Cummings situation - that the lockdown is merely a matter of personal preference - to obliterate the policy on which Boris's political reputation rests. One might even think that they and an embittered Cummings have cooked it up between themselves, so destructive is it to Boris's standing.
On the 3rd of April - while Dom was swanning around the country, the family of that 13yo who died of Covid weren't able to go to his funeral because they were self isolating. No special government exemption for them, no minister looking at the case on the news and saying 'hang on a second'. The rules are definately just for the little people.
"Funeral of boy, 13, who died with Covid-19 held without self-isolating family UK News | Published: Apr 3, 2020
None of Ismail Mohamed Abdulwahab’s immediate family were able to attend after two of his six siblings began displaying symptoms of the virus.
Ismail, from Brixton, south London, died alone in hospital in the early hours of Monday."
@Philip_Thompson: are these people stupid for not attending this funeral?
No. I'm not judging anyone for their choices in a tragic circumstance. The law said they could, if they chose not to that's their choice and I respect it.
What part of I respect people making their own decisions are you struggling with? What's right for you and what's right for someone else may not be the same thing. I don't believe one size fits all.
PS Hancock and others said afterwards they found that story tragic and wished they'd made it clearer that people could attend funerals, which was always legal.
I thought you said the guidance was always clear? I’m confused.
It is clear but it's also not one size fits all or the law.
Take the guidance under advisement then make your own choices based upon your situation and your circumstances under the law.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
Yes, if it meant he wasn’t spreading the ‘Rona to the North East from grubby London. Literally the whole point of the lockdown.
Someone who doesn't have kids or hasn't got nieces and nephews speaks. Kids stay with family. End of discussion.
My lack of children is irrelevant. We both know that this trip had nothing to do with the kids—they just fancied being quarantined in the North East rather than in the Smoke.
Again someone without kids or nieces and nephews speaks. If my niece was in that situation I'd break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was looked after properly. My sister would break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was being properly looked after. I've had the virus, trust me it doesn't matter where you're doing the quarantine and recovery you see the the bedsheets and the bathroom, very little else.
Dom (and the bonking professor) are being condemned by people who would break the same rules were they in that situation.
Max we agree that the lockdown is a farce, but it wasn’t at the time period we are talking about.
The idea that the pair of them couldn’t look after their three year old son between the two of them is ridiculous.
The child's three? That settles it for me then.
If the child was older then they can look after themselves more. My youngest daughter is three, she needs CONSTANT supervision.
Three year olds need childcare. End of story.
Depressed people NEED human contact. Cancer patients NEED check-ups. Family members NEED to attend funerals of loved ones.
What’s your point? Need has nothing to do with this.
This is all convenient bollocks for political effect.
People have skipped funerals of loved ones for this absolute horseshit to be dumped on them from a great height. Serious misstep by Rishi outriding for Cummings this morning too, his first one of the crisis perhaps.
Yes I think the ministers lining up behind Cummings are going to regret it in a few days. I guess Sunak feels as though he owes Dom given that he got he was handed the keys to No 11 when Dom ousted Javid.
Boris needs to reassert his authority and fast. The lockdown deniers in the cabinet and beyond are using the Cummings situation - that the lockdown is merely a matter of personal preference - to obliterate the policy on which Boris's political reputation rests. One might even think that they and an embittered Cummings have cooked it up between themselves, so destructive is it to Boris's standing.
See my earlier posting. It was a joke, but now I wonder.
As I've said all along - and as the government have said - guidelines are guidelines, law is law.
The Police enforce the law. Not guidelines.
If you judge something to be right for your situation that is against guidelines but within the law then that's your choice. The Police etc won't and shouldn't enforce guidelines and I've criticised them if they've tried to.
The guidelines do not say “you should self-isolate if you have coronavirus symptoms unless you think you shouldn’t”.
Your position is ridiculous. Take a step back.
Guidelines are not law. Law is law. My position is my position.
As I've said I will state my own position not the governments. If my position differs from the governments then that just proves that.
We’re not talking about the law. We’re talking about the guidance.
Dom Cummings was instrumental in creating the guidance, and then ignored it.
We’re not talking about whether he is criminally liable, we’re discussing whether he is a hypocrite: which he clearly is.
You’re saying what you want the guidance to be, which is fine, and I AGREE with you on that, but it has no relevance to this situation.
Dom Cummings has created guidance and issued it to the public, highlighting that people will DIE if its not followed, and thus created situations like people missing funerals of their loved ones, and then simply ignored it if it inconveniences him.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
Yes, if it meant he wasn’t spreading the ‘Rona to the North East from grubby London. Literally the whole point of the lockdown.
Someone who doesn't have kids or hasn't got nieces and nephews speaks. Kids stay with family. End of discussion.
My lack of children is irrelevant. We both know that this trip had nothing to do with the kids—they just fancied being quarantined in the North East rather than in the Smoke.
Again someone without kids or nieces and nephews speaks. If my niece was in that situation I'd break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was looked after properly. My sister would break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was being properly looked after. I've had the virus, trust me it doesn't matter where you're doing the quarantine and recovery you see the the bedsheets and the bathroom, very little else.
Dom (and the bonking professor) are being condemned by people who would break the same rules were they in that situation.
Max we agree that the lockdown is a farce, but it wasn’t at the time period we are talking about.
The idea that the pair of them couldn’t look after their three year old son between the two of them is ridiculous.
The child's three? That settles it for me then.
If the child was older then they can look after themselves more. My youngest daughter is three, she needs CONSTANT supervision.
Three year olds need childcare. End of story.
Depressed people NEED human contact. Cancer patients NEED check-ups. Family members NEED to attend funerals of loved ones.
What’s your point? Need has nothing to do with this.
This is all convenient bollocks for political effect.
If it came.to a depressing person getting human contact or committing suicide then I'd hope they'd choose to get human contact. I wouldn't criticise anyone who made that choice.
If a cancer patient needs a checkup they should get it. The government have repeated that, only thing they're delaying is immunosuppressive therapy if that's what the clinicians advise.
Family can and should attend funerals.
Am I being inconsistent?
Yes you’re being inconsistent, because you’re conflating your own position with that of the Government. You may believe that people should think for themselves, but that was not the Government’s position.
The Government’s position (in which Dom Cummings is part) was that if you had symptoms, you stayed at home. The end.
Wether you not you agree with that advice is neither here nor there, and as you know, I don’t agree with that advice.
As I've said all along - and as the government have said - guidelines are guidelines, law is law.
The Police enforce the law. Not guidelines.
If you judge something to be right for your situation that is against guidelines but within the law then that's your choice. The Police etc won't and shouldn't enforce guidelines and I've criticised them if they've tried to.
“The Police enforce the law. Not guidelines.” FFS. Where do you get this shite from?
Seriously, just quit. The Highway Code, to name but one example, are technically just guidelines. However, breaching the Highway Code, while not in and of itself an offence, may be evidence of an offence under the Road Traffic Acts, so officers can, will, and are entitled to, take action. Breach of guidelines can constitute reasonable belief an offence has taken place.
Similarly breach of the Covid guidelines is not in and of itself an offence, but it may be evidence of an offence. So police can take action for breach of guidelines, as such breach can constitute reasonable belief that an offence under the C19 regs has been committed.
Cummings will have to go, but he'll need to be dragged out whilst he clings on with his fingernails.
The trouble is, if he doesn't, the Government's whole lockdown message dissolves instantly.
We've now had a series of top advisors in Government personally ignore their own advice, and this hasn't gone unnoticed by the public.
"Looking after children" - if that is what it was, will dissolve the lockdown?
Which part of your precious guidelines state that it’s okay to travel 250 miles to look after your children in your second home in Durham rather than in London?
It says its OK to leave the home to avoid harm.
Being incapable of looking after a young child is harmful.
How do people without castles in Durham ever manage?
The other interesting thing this is going to highlight is that Cummings is every bit a member of the elite he pretends to castigate.
Everybody should do their best under their own circumstances.
Cummings will have to go, but he'll need to be dragged out whilst he clings on with his fingernails.
The trouble is, if he doesn't, the Government's whole lockdown message dissolves instantly.
We've now had a series of top advisors in Government personally ignore their own advice, and this hasn't gone unnoticed by the public.
"Looking after children" - if that is what it was, will dissolve the lockdown?
Which part of your precious guidelines state that it’s okay to travel 250 miles to look after your children in your second home in Durham rather than in London?
It says its OK to leave the home to avoid harm.
Being incapable of looking after a young child is harmful.
How do people without castles in Durham ever manage?
The other interesting thing this is going to highlight is that Cummings is every bit a member of the elite he pretends to castigate.
Accuracy is important. His family don't have a castle in Durham. His in laws have a convenient one just up the road though. The perfect place to plot your revenge on the elite.
And anyone who is annoyed by the story is just going to ignore the lockdown.
Which ironically is what the Government wants and needs at the moment to try and get the economy going.
Shouldn't we differentiate between a 'lockdown' ie people being kept in their own homes and a 'shutdown' ie areas of the economy not being allowed to operate.
There's no longer a lockdown but the shutdown partially continues.
On the 3rd of April - while Dom was swanning around the country, the family of that 13yo who died of Covid weren't able to go to his funeral because they were self isolating. No special government exemption for them, no minister looking at the case on the news and saying 'hang on a second'. The rules are definately just for the little people.
"Funeral of boy, 13, who died with Covid-19 held without self-isolating family UK News | Published: Apr 3, 2020
None of Ismail Mohamed Abdulwahab’s immediate family were able to attend after two of his six siblings began displaying symptoms of the virus.
Ismail, from Brixton, south London, died alone in hospital in the early hours of Monday."
@Philip_Thompson: are these people stupid for not attending this funeral?
No. I'm not judging anyone for their choices in a tragic circumstance. The law said they could, if they chose not to that's their choice and I respect it.
What part of I respect people making their own decisions are you struggling with? What's right for you and what's right for someone else may not be the same thing. I don't believe one size fits all.
PS Hancock and others said afterwards they found that story tragic and wished they'd made it clearer that people could attend funerals, which was always legal.
I sense you've mislaid the thinking cap again. Have you checked the back seat of the car?
"PHE has shown itself up to be fundamentally unfit for purpose. Initially obsessed with centralising testing in Government facilities, the quango rejected the successful German model of involving private sector labs. It took political intervention from Matt Hancock in the shape of an enormous and public testing target to force PHE to concede the private sector can help
"Like the Electoral Commission, this supposedly independent body has appeared more ideological than truth-seeking. PHE is known primarily for nanny state policies rather than pandemic preparedness. Obsessed with taxing our drinks, attacking smokers, and a new war on sugar, it is clear it was utterly unprepared for a real public health emergency when it came along. Public Health England is a stained, distracted and ideological institution and the government would likely have been better off dealing with Coronavirus without it."
Anyone in governments worldwide who has done anything remotely similar had to resign. What is different about the Prime Minister’s personal adviser? I guess it’s the memoirs.
The big problem for all the government ministers backing Dominic Cummings' account is that it has more holes than Swiss cheese. Are they going to defend tomorrow's revised account too?
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
Yes, if it meant he wasn’t spreading the ‘Rona to the North East from grubby London. Literally the whole point of the lockdown.
Someone who doesn't have kids or hasn't got nieces and nephews speaks. Kids stay with family. End of discussion.
My lack of children is irrelevant. We both know that this trip had nothing to do with the kids—they just fancied being quarantined in the North East rather than in the Smoke.
Again someone without kids or nieces and nephews speaks. If my niece was in that situation I'd break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was looked after properly. My sister would break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was being properly looked after. I've had the virus, trust me it doesn't matter where you're doing the quarantine and recovery you see the the bedsheets and the bathroom, very little else.
Dom (and the bonking professor) are being condemned by people who would break the same rules were they in that situation.
Max we agree that the lockdown is a farce, but it wasn’t at the time period we are talking about.
The idea that the pair of them couldn’t look after their three year old son between the two of them is ridiculous.
The child's three? That settles it for me then.
If the child was older then they can look after themselves more. My youngest daughter is three, she needs CONSTANT supervision.
Three year olds need childcare. End of story.
Depressed people NEED human contact. Cancer patients NEED check-ups. Family members NEED to attend funerals of loved ones.
What’s your point? Need has nothing to do with this.
This is all convenient bollocks for political effect.
If it came.to a depressing person getting human contact or committing suicide then I'd hope they'd choose to get human contact. I wouldn't criticise anyone who made that choice.
If a cancer patient needs a checkup they should get it. The government have repeated that, only thing they're delaying is immunosuppressive therapy if that's what the clinicians advise.
Family can and should attend funerals.
Am I being inconsistent?
Yes you’re being inconsistent, because you’re conflating your own position with that of the Government. You may believe that people should think for themselves, but that was not the Government’s position.
The Government’s position (in which Dom Cummings is part) was that if you had symptoms, you stayed at home. The end.
Wether you not you agree with that advice is neither here nor there, and as you know, I don’t agree with that advice.
As I've said all along - and as the government have said - guidelines are guidelines, law is law.
The Police enforce the law. Not guidelines.
If you judge something to be right for your situation that is against guidelines but within the law then that's your choice. The Police etc won't and shouldn't enforce guidelines and I've criticised them if they've tried to.
“The Police enforce the law. Not guidelines.” FFS. Where do you get this shite from?
Seriously, just quit. The Highway Code, to name but one example, are technically just guidelines. However, breaching the Highway Code, while not in and of itself an offence, may be evidence of an offence under the Road Traffic Acts, so officers can, will, and are entitled to, take action. Breach of guidelines can constitute reasonable belief an offence has taken place.
Similarly breach of the Covid guidelines is not in and of itself an offence, but it may be evidence of an offence. So police can take action for breach of guidelines, as such breach can constitute reasonable belief that an offence under the C19 regs has been committed.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I hope you're not a driver!
You're factually wrong. The Highway Code is a mix of law and guidance. Some is law "you MUST (or MUST NOT) ..." while some is guidance "you should (or should not) ..."
The Police enforce the law, the MUST, they don't enforce the guidance. Though insurance companies can certainly take the guidance into account when determining blame.
And anyone who is annoyed by the story is just going to ignore the lockdown.
Which ironically is what the Government wants and needs at the moment to try and get the economy going.
Shouldn't we differentiate between a 'lockdown' ie people being kept in their own homes and a 'shutdown' ie areas of the economy not being allowed to operate.
There's no longer a lockdown but the shutdown partially continues.
It was never much of a lockdown compared to other places. A couple we know in a small flat in Spain have the misfortune to live 20 metres from a crappy food shop. So once a day for six weeks one of them was allowed to walk 40 metres for some crappy food. And the cops were out in strength to enforce it. Measures like this would have led to civil unrest in Britain, which is why the "too little, too late" brigade can't even enjoy the comfort of hindsight.
If the guardian thought it was such a terrible thing Cummings did why did they wait six weeks to publish it .
Do you know that they "waited" six weeks? Maybe they found out yesterday morning and held back for an outrageous 5 hours while the checked out the tip-off.
I imagine what really happened is that Dom couldn’t access childcare - perhaps his nanny left, they did have one - and so they hotfooted it to the in-laws.
While one or both knowingly had the rona.
This is not about leaving London, or about the kid. It was just easier to be closer to the various in-laws (both sets).
Are you stupid , it was just against all the rules and the arsehole made the rules but thought he was too special to stick by them. He must be loaded and could easily have organised something, not hard to get groceries delivered. Only Tory wankers are able to try justifying his actions.
If the guardian thought it was such a terrible thing Cummings did why did they wait six weeks to publish it .
Do you know that they "waited" six weeks? Maybe they found out yesterday morning and held back for an outrageous 5 hours while the checked out the tip-off.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
It approaches JRMs "Common Sense" remarks about the Grenfell tower dead.
No. It's like defending those who ignored the stay in your room guidance in Grenfell and made the decision to evacuate. I'm not the one judging anyone.
If you're worried about safety then guidance is that. Guidance. Do whatever you think is right. If you think stating still is right do that. If you think getting to safety is right do that.
You are now being a real arsehole, he was not in danger of being burned alive.
We are a divided nation. This is the greatest crisis since World War II but at least then we were largely united against a common enemy. There is now a witch hunt for lockdown-breakers in high places. They are treated as if they were collaborators with the virus. In WW2 some collaborators were executed. In addition, we seem to be leading the world in finding things to complain about, even though many people are safe at home with plenty of money for now.
Perhaps some people who come out of this episode well are the government ministers and advisors who have had to handle this crisis, despite not always being the most talented imaginable holders of their office. My admiration for workers in this crisis is inversely proportional to the amount of complaining that I have heard coming from them. I have heard very few complaints from supermarket workers, who often seem surprisingly cheerful.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
If that is the case, what was his motive in going to Durham?
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
I have a hunch that a daughter of a baronet and the commissioning editor of the Spectator, never mind the Prime Minister's chief advisor and nephew of a judge, could find someone able to help out in London if absolutely necessary.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
It approaches JRMs "Common Sense" remarks about the Grenfell tower dead.
No. It's like defending those who ignored the stay in your room guidance in Grenfell and made the decision to evacuate. I'm not the one judging anyone.
If you're worried about safety then guidance is that. Guidance. Do whatever you think is right. If you think stating still is right do that. If you think getting to safety is right do that.
You are now being a real arsehole, he was not in danger of being burned alive.
Not unless his unsupervised three year old started a deadly fire.
If you think that leaving three year olds potentially without supervision is OK then that's on you. I wouldn't abandon my three year old.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
If that is the case, what was his motive in going to Durham?
A more convenient place to quarantine for a family than London?
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
Yes, if it meant he wasn’t spreading the ‘Rona to the North East from grubby London. Literally the whole point of the lockdown.
Someone who doesn't have kids or hasn't got nieces and nephews speaks. Kids stay with family. End of discussion.
My lack of children is irrelevant. We both know that this trip had nothing to do with the kids—they just fancied being quarantined in the North East rather than in the Smoke.
Again someone without kids or nieces and nephews speaks. If my niece was in that situation I'd break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was looked after properly. My sister would break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was being properly looked after. I've had the virus, trust me it doesn't matter where you're doing the quarantine and recovery you see the the bedsheets and the bathroom, very little else.
Dom (and the bonking professor) are being condemned by people who would break the same rules were they in that situation.
More bollox, there were two adults there and both were NOT incapacitated, is it any wonder Tories are so hated, totally lacking any principles or morals.
On the 3rd of April - while Dom was swanning around the country, the family of that 13yo who died of Covid weren't able to go to his funeral because they were self isolating. No special government exemption for them, no minister looking at the case on the news and saying 'hang on a second'. The rules are definately just for the little people.
"Funeral of boy, 13, who died with Covid-19 held without self-isolating family UK News | Published: Apr 3, 2020
None of Ismail Mohamed Abdulwahab’s immediate family were able to attend after two of his six siblings began displaying symptoms of the virus.
Ismail, from Brixton, south London, died alone in hospital in the early hours of Monday."
@Philip_Thompson: are these people stupid for not attending this funeral?
No. I'm not judging anyone for their choices in a tragic circumstance. The law said they could, if they chose not to that's their choice and I respect it.
What part of I respect people making their own decisions are you struggling with? What's right for you and what's right for someone else may not be the same thing. I don't believe one size fits all.
PS Hancock and others said afterwards they found that story tragic and wished they'd made it clearer that people could attend funerals, which was always legal.
I thought you said the guidance was always clear? I’m confused.
They go round in circles till they disappear up their own arses
"PHE has shown itself up to be fundamentally unfit for purpose. Initially obsessed with centralising testing in Government facilities, the quango rejected the successful German model of involving private sector labs. It took political intervention from Matt Hancock in the shape of an enormous and public testing target to force PHE to concede the private sector can help
"Like the Electoral Commission, this supposedly independent body has appeared more ideological than truth-seeking. PHE is known primarily for nanny state policies rather than pandemic preparedness. Obsessed with taxing our drinks, attacking smokers, and a new war on sugar, it is clear it was utterly unprepared for a real public health emergency when it came along. Public Health England is a stained, distracted and ideological institution and the government would likely have been better off dealing with Coronavirus without it."
How many people die from obesity and cancers each year?
If only sanctimonious fury could cure Covid -the PB R would be 0.
Hope nobody bursts a vein in their temple - it’s a long weekend after all.
Lot better than being a lickspittle lapdog sent out to defend the indefensible, we see all the usual suspects on here prostrating themselves and taking one for the party
And anyone who is annoyed by the story is just going to ignore the lockdown.
Which ironically is what the Government wants and needs at the moment to try and get the economy going.
Shouldn't we differentiate between a 'lockdown' ie people being kept in their own homes and a 'shutdown' ie areas of the economy not being allowed to operate.
There's no longer a lockdown but the shutdown partially continues.
Regardless of what we do with lockdown it is essential quarantine remains, that is why this story is so egregious.
The big problem for all the government ministers backing Dominic Cummings' account is that it has more holes than Swiss cheese. Are they going to defend tomorrow's revised account too?
I'm starting to detect the whiff of political death about the Boris era. The lockdown will be forever associated with Boris. By undermining the lockdown now, these ministers are putting themselves in good stead for when they completely disassociate themselves from it in a matter of weeks or months.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
I have a hunch that a daughter of a baronet and the commissioning editor of the Spectator, never mind the Prime Minister's chief advisor and nephew of a judge, could find someone able to help out in London if absolutely necessary.
So you've got no qualms with seeking help in these circumstances then?
Your complaint is he sought help from family rather than others?
You're factually wrong. The Highway Code is a mix of law and guidance. Some is law "you MUST (or MUST NOT) ..." while some is guidance "you should (or should not) ..."
The Police enforce the law, the MUST, they don't enforce the guidance. Though insurance companies can certainly take the guidance into account when determining blame.
Give up. Just give up, please. You are startling kill informed.
Riddle me this, Rumpole, Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
So, which part of that act of Parliament is subsidiary to your ill informed opinion?
And anyone who is annoyed by the story is just going to ignore the lockdown.
Which ironically is what the Government wants and needs at the moment to try and get the economy going.
Shouldn't we differentiate between a 'lockdown' ie people being kept in their own homes and a 'shutdown' ie areas of the economy not being allowed to operate.
There's no longer a lockdown but the shutdown partially continues.
It was never much of a lockdown compared to other places. A couple we know in a small flat in Spain have the misfortune to live 20 metres from a crappy food shop. So once a day for six weeks one of them was allowed to walk 40 metres for some crappy food. And the cops were out in strength to enforce it. Measures like this would have led to civil unrest in Britain, which is why the "too little, too late" brigade can't even enjoy the comfort of hindsight.
I was locked up for three weeks, requiring a police permit in advance to go out for food and medicine once every three days. Now it's relaxed a little, but there is still an 8pm-6am curfew and shops are only allowed 30% capacity - while masks and gloves are compulsory.
The British approach was much closer to Sweden than an awful lot of other countries, not that most people would think from the UK press reporting.
By the way, some enterprising journalist - as well as carefully reading Mary Wakefield’s London Lockdown article in the Spectator - might want to look into the links between her brother and a Ukrainian oligarch, close to a number of unsavoury Russians and Ukrainians and currently the subject of an extradition request by the US Department of Justice.
Why would such a man want to make friends with those close to political circles in Britain. It’s a mystery.
I think the connection with heart disease is that Covid-19 increasingly behaves as a disease of small blood vessels. Even the lung pathology seems to be driven by that.
We are seeing an uptick in odd cardiac conditions. I am sure that there is some mileage in looking at clotting and platelet drugs, as well as statins for their endothelial stabilisation. It all needs more proper science rather than woo.
There also seems to be a strong correlation of disease severity with history of chronic inflammation - which again suggests statins worth a look.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
Yes, if it meant he wasn’t spreading the ‘Rona to the North East from grubby London. Literally the whole point of the lockdown.
Someone who doesn't have kids or hasn't got nieces and nephews speaks. Kids stay with family. End of discussion.
My lack of children is irrelevant. We both know that this trip had nothing to do with the kids—they just fancied being quarantined in the North East rather than in the Smoke.
Again someone without kids or nieces and nephews speaks. If my niece was in that situation I'd break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was looked after properly. My sister would break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was being properly looked after. I've had the virus, trust me it doesn't matter where you're doing the quarantine and recovery you see the the bedsheets and the bathroom, very little else.
Dom (and the bonking professor) are being condemned by people who would break the same rules were they in that situation.
Max we agree that the lockdown is a farce, but it wasn’t at the time period we are talking about.
The idea that the pair of them couldn’t look after their three year old son between the two of them is ridiculous.
The child's three? That settles it for me then.
If the child was older then they can look after themselves more. My youngest daughter is three, she needs CONSTANT supervision.
Three year olds need childcare. End of story.
So quarantine is voluntary for parents?
Not what I said.
If my daughter needs something I leave the house to go get it. But only if my wife is at home to supervise her. Children need childcare and if you don't think so you're an idiot.
You are not too bright if you do not know the difference of you without virus going out in an emergency to get your daughter something compared to a whole family driving 250 miles to their second home next to multiple family members etc. Get a grip we are not all as stupid as you, try to think up something that is not an obvious lie.
You're factually wrong. The Highway Code is a mix of law and guidance. Some is law "you MUST (or MUST NOT) ..." while some is guidance "you should (or should not) ..."
The Police enforce the law, the MUST, they don't enforce the guidance. Though insurance companies can certainly take the guidance into account when determining blame.
Riddle me this, Rumpole, Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
So, which part of that act of Parliament is subsidiary to your ill informed opinion?
That confirms what I said. Simply being within the Highway Code doesn't make something law. But some of the Highway Code is law.
From the introduction of the Highway Code itself. Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.
Do something that the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do then of course the Police are entitled to act then because you've broken the law. Do something that the Highway Code says you should not do and you've not broken the law.
And anyone who is annoyed by the story is just going to ignore the lockdown.
Which ironically is what the Government wants and needs at the moment to try and get the economy going.
Shouldn't we differentiate between a 'lockdown' ie people being kept in their own homes and a 'shutdown' ie areas of the economy not being allowed to operate.
There's no longer a lockdown but the shutdown partially continues.
Yes, and two months ago people were making this distintion. But the press always awant to use more extreme words, so now everyone thinks that the UK measures are more or less the same as in France, Spain, Northern Italy and Wuhan.
We're seeing the same in reverse now with the "relaxation", which is often interpreted as life in Germany is back to normal.
Germany is blaming cramped living conditions for abbatoir workers. We must hope it is not that the virus has spread to farm animals and then back to workers via aerosols from sawing carcasses.
Meat packing is a very noisy business, lots of shouting.
It shows how Track and Trace can identify nexi of infection, and where it is not happening. It is a pity that we abandoned it on March 11, ad wasted six weeks before restarting.
Shouting, and cold moist atmosphere. Good conditions for maintaining aerosolised virus.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
Yes, if it meant he wasn’t spreading the ‘Rona to the North East from grubby London. Literally the whole point of the lockdown.
Someone who doesn't have kids or hasn't got nieces and nephews speaks. Kids stay with family. End of discussion.
My lack of children is irrelevant. We both know that this trip had nothing to do with the kids—they just fancied being quarantined in the North East rather than in the Smoke.
Again someone without kids or nieces and nephews speaks. If my niece was in that situation I'd break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was looked after properly. My sister would break whatever rules necessary to ensure she was being properly looked after. I've had the virus, trust me it doesn't matter where you're doing the quarantine and recovery you see the the bedsheets and the bathroom, very little else.
Dom (and the bonking professor) are being condemned by people who would break the same rules were they in that situation.
Max we agree that the lockdown is a farce, but it wasn’t at the time period we are talking about.
The idea that the pair of them couldn’t look after their three year old son between the two of them is ridiculous.
The child's three? That settles it for me then.
If the child was older then they can look after themselves more. My youngest daughter is three, she needs CONSTANT supervision.
Three year olds need childcare. End of story.
Depressed people NEED human contact. Cancer patients NEED check-ups. Family members NEED to attend funerals of loved ones.
What’s your point? Need has nothing to do with this.
This is all convenient bollocks for political effect.
People have skipped funerals of loved ones for this absolute horseshit to be dumped on them from a great height. Serious misstep by Rishi outriding for Cummings this morning too, his first one of the crisis perhaps.
He is just another YES man, when Boris says bend over he does promptly.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
I have a hunch that a daughter of a baronet and the commissioning editor of the Spectator, never mind the Prime Minister's chief advisor and nephew of a judge, could find someone able to help out in London if absolutely necessary.
So you've got no qualms with seeking help in these circumstances then?
Your complaint is he sought help from family rather than others?
At the moment I'm still trying to establish what happened. Those government ministers queuing up to defend him better be very sure of their ground and I don't see how they can be.
Was Dominic so ill that he couldnt look after a child or did he drive 250 miles to dump his child on others? Because both is not a viable answer.
Already gotten back to you. That confirms what I said which is that insurance companies can determine liabilities based upon the guidance but the Police enforce the laws which are identified in the Code by MUST or MUST NOT plus the reference to the law that sets that as law. You've proved my point thank you.
Good on him. I'd do the same if I was worried for my three year old.
Most parents would break the rules to save their children but in this particular instance, does what Cummings did even help his son, or has he taken him further away from leading hospitals with experience in treating this condition, and increased the chances of infecting the boy during the journey?
By the way, some enterprising journalist - as well as carefully reading Mary Wakefield’s London Lockdown article in the Spectator - might want to look into the links between her brother and a Ukrainian oligarch, close to a number of unsavoury Russians and Ukrainians and currently the subject of an extradition request by the US Department of Justice.
Why would such a man want to make friends with those close to political circles in Britain. It’s a mystery.
And she is married to someone who spent three years in Russia.
I realise that there are a huge number of corone/covid stories out there, but I'm surprised the news has not been coverd much in the UK. This has been one of the top stories for the last 10 days or so in Germany.
And I'm surprised to be honest that it has taken an outbreak for the press to run with this story. It does seem to be a one of those oha moments where people start saying "I like cheap meat, but not that cheap."
News tends to be parochial. In a similar manner, we’ve only just realised that Sweden has kept schools open while doing no testing at all to track what kind of transmission might be happening in them.
You're factually wrong. The Highway Code is a mix of law and guidance. Some is law "you MUST (or MUST NOT) ..." while some is guidance "you should (or should not) ..."
The Police enforce the law, the MUST, they don't enforce the guidance. Though insurance companies can certainly take the guidance into account when determining blame.
Riddle me this, Rumpole, Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
So, which part of that act of Parliament is subsidiary to your ill informed opinion?
That confirms what I said. Simply being within the Highway Code doesn't make something law. But some of the Highway Code is law.
From the introduction of the Highway Code itself. Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.
Do something that the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do then of course the Police are entitled to act then because you've broken the law. Do something that the Highway Code says you should not do and you've not broken the law.
No it doesn’t. It’s the flat contradiction of what you said. You said that just because something was in the Highway Code it’s Law. It’s not. Section 38(7) RTA 1988 expressly says so and overrides anything in the HC preamble. Parliament defines offences, not the authors of the Highway Code, unless I missed that criminal law lecture.
I realise that there are a huge number of corone/covid stories out there, but I'm surprised the news has not been coverd much in the UK. This has been one of the top stories for the last 10 days or so in Germany.
And I'm surprised to be honest that it has taken an outbreak for the press to run with this story. It does seem to be a one of those oha moments where people start saying "I like cheap meat, but not that cheap."
News tends to be parochial. In a similar manner, we’ve only just realised that Sweden has kept schools open while doing no testing at all to track what kind of transmission might be happening in them.
Absolutely loving Philip Thompson's parody of a one-eyed political groupie, ineptly defending the indefensible on behalf of his party today,
He's nailed it all day long - bravo.
Whatever.
I'm a father to a three year old. She comes first and I don't judge anyone from any party for doing the same. The Police have confirmed no law was broken.
Now it's just politics and that people who hated Cummings are trying to get him for how he legally chose to look after his three year old. Take a long look in the mirror it's pathetic.
Already gotten back to you. That confirms what I said which is that insurance companies can determine liabilities based upon the guidance but the Police enforce the laws which are identified in the Code by MUST or MUST NOT plus the reference to the law that sets that as law. You've proved my point thank you.
That’s not what you said. And laws are not identified in the code. A law is identified by Parliament. You really are a special case. You think the law is whatever you define it to be.
Of course, as a parent, your will is law of course. Us inferior beings just have to live with your superior intellect and compassion.
I realise that there are a huge number of corone/covid stories out there, but I'm surprised the news has not been coverd much in the UK. This has been one of the top stories for the last 10 days or so in Germany.
And I'm surprised to be honest that it has taken an outbreak for the press to run with this story. It does seem to be a one of those oha moments where people start saying "I like cheap meat, but not that cheap."
News tends to be parochial. In a similar manner, we’ve only just realised that Sweden has kept schools open while doing no testing at all to track what kind of transmission might be happening in them.
Which would have been very useful knowledge.
A lack of interest in testing seems to be a common theme.
Which given the unknows of the virus is all the more reprehensible.
Absolutely loving Philip Thompson's parody of a one-eyed political groupie, ineptly defending the indefensible on behalf of his party today,
He's nailed it all day long - bravo.
Whatever.
I'm a father to a three year old. She comes first and I don't judge anyone from any party for doing the same. The Police have confirmed no law was broken.
Now it's just politics and that people who hated Cummings are trying to get him for how he legally chose to look after his three year old. Take a long look in the mirror it's pathetic.
So the police, and not the courts, are the arbiters of law now? And other people’s three year olds are clearly less important than yours
"PHE has shown itself up to be fundamentally unfit for purpose. Initially obsessed with centralising testing in Government facilities, the quango rejected the successful German model of involving private sector labs. It took political intervention from Matt Hancock in the shape of an enormous and public testing target to force PHE to concede the private sector can help
"Like the Electoral Commission, this supposedly independent body has appeared more ideological than truth-seeking. PHE is known primarily for nanny state policies rather than pandemic preparedness. Obsessed with taxing our drinks, attacking smokers, and a new war on sugar, it is clear it was utterly unprepared for a real public health emergency when it came along. Public Health England is a stained, distracted and ideological institution and the government would likely have been better off dealing with Coronavirus without it."
How many people die from obesity and cancers each year?
Those aren't an emergency, they need serious long term planning and a proper strategy to fix. PHE has failed at those too, though.
It's simple. When the Highway Code says you Must do something it is reflecting the law, which is written elsewhere, such as a a Road Traffic Act. When it says you Should do something, it is guidance. It's just the same as me telling you you MUSTZ not kill people. It's illegal not because I told you (albeit good advice) but because there is a law against it.
And anyone who is annoyed by the story is just going to ignore the lockdown.
Which ironically is what the Government wants and needs at the moment to try and get the economy going.
Shouldn't we differentiate between a 'lockdown' ie people being kept in their own homes and a 'shutdown' ie areas of the economy not being allowed to operate.
There's no longer a lockdown but the shutdown partially continues.
But how does ignoring the lockdown get the economy going there is no where to spend your money, open the pub gardens with strict distancing rules and some more retail outlets
that people who hated Cummings are trying to get him
Including well known lefties and #FBPEers Julia Hartley Brewer, Tim Montgomerie and Daily Mail below the line commenters generally.
Daily Mail BTL comments hate everything. You could show them a children's choir singing to the queen and the top comment would be about too many foreign kids in it or something.
Absolutely loving Philip Thompson's parody of a one-eyed political groupie, ineptly defending the indefensible on behalf of his party today,
He's nailed it all day long - bravo.
Whatever.
I'm a father to a three year old. She comes first and I don't judge anyone from any party for doing the same. The Police have confirmed no law was broken.
Now it's just politics and that people who hated Cummings are trying to get him for how he legally chose to look after his three year old. Take a long look in the mirror it's pathetic.
Then the exact same rules should have applied to all those others that were forced by the government not to attend funerals or visit dying loved ones.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
I have a hunch that a daughter of a baronet and the commissioning editor of the Spectator, never mind the Prime Minister's chief advisor and nephew of a judge, could find someone able to help out in London if absolutely necessary.
So you've got no qualms with seeking help in these circumstances then?
Your complaint is he sought help from family rather than others?
At the moment I'm still trying to establish what happened. Those government ministers queuing up to defend him better be very sure of their ground and I don't see how they can be.
Was Dominic so ill that he couldnt look after a child or did he drive 250 miles to dump his child on others? Because both is not a viable answer.
Both is viable if he hadn't deteriorated yet but was facing it.
They say they visited a house to offer advice, have called it "very unwise", but decided not to take further action.
No further action is not in any way saying no law was broken - it's saying the matter was resolved informally such that it isn't worth the trouble of pushing for prosecution. That's commonplace, particularly in current circumstances where resources are stretched.
Number 10, incidentally, appear to be saying the Durham Police are lying, which is a developing story.
It's simple. When the Highway Code says you Must do something it is reflecting the law, which is written elsewhere, such as a a Road Traffic Act. When it says you Should do something, it is guidance. It's just the same as me telling you you MUSTZ not kill people. It's illegal not because I told you (albeit good advice) but because there is a law against it.
Exactly. When the Highway Code says you must do something it’s because there is a law (somewhere else) against it.
And anyone who is annoyed by the story is just going to ignore the lockdown.
Which ironically is what the Government wants and needs at the moment to try and get the economy going.
Shouldn't we differentiate between a 'lockdown' ie people being kept in their own homes and a 'shutdown' ie areas of the economy not being allowed to operate.
There's no longer a lockdown but the shutdown partially continues.
But how does ignoring the lockdown get the economy going there is no where to spend your money, open the pub gardens with strict distancing rules and some more retail outlets
It doesn't but it adds to pressure for shops, pubs etc to open.
As an example drive-through restaurants have opened during the last fortnight.
They say they visited a house to offer advice, have called it "very unwise", but decided not to take it further action. No further action is not in any way saying no law was broken - it's saying the matter was resolved such that it isn't worth pushing for prosecution. That's commonplace, particularly in current circumstances where resources are stretched.
Number 10, incidentally, appear to be saying the Durham Police are lying, which is a developing story.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the police took no action, then there is by definition no case to answer.
That used to be the liberal position - before Cummings Derangement Syndrome set in, of course.
Absolutely loving Philip Thompson's parody of a one-eyed political groupie, ineptly defending the indefensible on behalf of his party today,
He's nailed it all day long - bravo.
Whatever.
I'm a father to a three year old. She comes first and I don't judge anyone from any party for doing the same. The Police have confirmed no law was broken.
Now it's just politics and that people who hated Cummings are trying to get him for how he legally chose to look after his three year old. Take a long look in the mirror it's pathetic.
So the police, and not the courts, are the arbiters of law now? And other people’s three year olds are clearly less important than yours
Huh?
The Police enforce the law and it can go to the courts (if it didn't get resolved with a fixed penalty notice). The Police have no authority to enforce what isn't in the law.
And yes to me my daughter is one of the most important people in the world. I wouldn't expect others to think the same about my daughter. I would expect others to think the same about their own.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
that people who hated Cummings are trying to get him
Including well known lefties and #FBPEers Julia Hartley Brewer, Tim Montgomerie and Daily Mail below the line commenters generally.
Daily Mail BTL comments hate everything. You could show them a children's choir singing to the queen and the top comment would be about too many foreign kids in it or something.
Absolutely loving Philip Thompson's parody of a one-eyed political groupie, ineptly defending the indefensible on behalf of his party today,
He's nailed it all day long - bravo.
Whatever.
I'm a father to a three year old. She comes first and I don't judge anyone from any party for doing the same. The Police have confirmed no law was broken.
Now it's just politics and that people who hated Cummings are trying to get him for how he legally chose to look after his three year old. Take a long look in the mirror it's pathetic.
Then the exact same rules should have applied to all those others that were forced by the government not to attend funerals or visit dying loved ones.
Comments
As I've said I will state my own position not the governments. If my position differs from the governments then that just proves that.
"Mr Cummings will not be leaving Downing Street because without him the Prime Minister cannot distinguish his arse from his elbow."
Said a government spokesperson.
Take the guidance under advisement then make your own choices based upon your situation and your circumstances under the law.
Dom Cummings was instrumental in creating the guidance, and then ignored it.
We’re not talking about whether he is criminally liable, we’re discussing whether he is a hypocrite: which he clearly is.
You’re saying what you want the guidance to be, which is fine, and I AGREE with you on that, but it has no relevance to this situation.
Dom Cummings has created guidance and issued it to the public, highlighting that people will DIE if its not followed, and thus created situations like people missing funerals of their loved ones, and then simply ignored it if it inconveniences him.
Seriously, just quit. The Highway Code, to name but one example, are technically just guidelines. However, breaching the Highway Code, while not in and of itself an offence, may be evidence of an offence under the Road Traffic Acts, so officers can, will, and are entitled to, take action. Breach of guidelines can constitute reasonable belief an offence has taken place.
Similarly breach of the Covid guidelines is not in and of itself an offence, but it may be evidence of an offence. So police can take action for breach of guidelines, as such breach can constitute reasonable belief that an offence under the C19 regs has been committed.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Of course Cummings is elite.
The perfect place to plot your revenge on the elite.
There's no longer a lockdown but the shutdown partially continues.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/22/covid-proves-urgently-need-new-quango-bonfire-starting-public/
"PHE has shown itself up to be fundamentally unfit for purpose. Initially obsessed with centralising testing in Government facilities, the quango rejected the successful German model of involving private sector labs. It took political intervention from Matt Hancock in the shape of an enormous and public testing target to force PHE to concede the private sector can help
"Like the Electoral Commission, this supposedly independent body has appeared more ideological than truth-seeking. PHE is known primarily for nanny state policies rather than pandemic preparedness. Obsessed with taxing our drinks, attacking smokers, and a new war on sugar, it is clear it was utterly unprepared for a real public health emergency when it came along. Public Health England is a stained, distracted and ideological institution and the government would likely have been better off dealing with Coronavirus without it."
You're factually wrong. The Highway Code is a mix of law and guidance. Some is law "you MUST (or MUST NOT) ..." while some is guidance "you should (or should not) ..."
The Police enforce the law, the MUST, they don't enforce the guidance. Though insurance companies can certainly take the guidance into account when determining blame.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8350109/Two-thirds-Britons-piled-pounds-lockdown.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
Perhaps some people who come out of this episode well are the government ministers and advisors who have had to handle this crisis, despite not always being the most talented imaginable holders of their office. My admiration for workers in this crisis is inversely proportional to the amount of complaining that I have heard coming from them. I have heard very few complaints from supermarket workers, who often seem surprisingly cheerful.
https://twitter.com/garyhynds/status/1263964853452013572?s=21
If you think that leaving three year olds potentially without supervision is OK then that's on you. I wouldn't abandon my three year old.
The idea a three year old should be left to fend for themselves is literally insane.
Your complaint is he sought help from family rather than others?
He's nailed it all day long - bravo.
Riddle me this, Rumpole, Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
So, which part of that act of Parliament is subsidiary to your ill informed opinion?
I'm in the other third.
Slip slidin' away, slip slidin' away...
The British approach was much closer to Sweden than an awful lot of other countries, not that most people would think from the UK press reporting.
Why would such a man want to make friends with those close to political circles in Britain. It’s a mystery.
From the introduction of the Highway Code itself.
Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.
Do something that the Highway Code says you MUST NOT do then of course the Police are entitled to act then because you've broken the law. Do something that the Highway Code says you should not do and you've not broken the law.
We're seeing the same in reverse now with the "relaxation", which is often interpreted as life in Germany is back to normal.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/38
Was Dominic so ill that he couldnt look after a child or did he drive 250 miles to dump his child on others? Because both is not a viable answer.
Its almost enough for a plot of mini series.
OODA !
In a similar manner, we’ve only just realised that Sweden has kept schools open while doing no testing at all to track what kind of transmission might be happening in them.
Which would have been very useful knowledge.
I'm a father to a three year old. She comes first and I don't judge anyone from any party for doing the same. The Police have confirmed no law was broken.
Now it's just politics and that people who hated Cummings are trying to get him for how he legally chose to look after his three year old. Take a long look in the mirror it's pathetic.
Of course, as a parent, your will is law of course. Us inferior beings just have to live with your superior intellect and compassion.
I'd call friends near my home and ask them if they could look after the kid if worse came to worst.
Only one of us is being reasonable.
Which given the unknows of the virus is all the more reprehensible.
I saw on Sky News that the daft twat drives a Disco. I am surprised it managed to complete the Durham Kindertransport operation under its own power.
They say they visited a house to offer advice, have called it "very unwise", but decided not to take further action.
No further action is not in any way saying no law was broken - it's saying the matter was resolved informally such that it isn't worth the trouble of pushing for prosecution. That's commonplace, particularly in current circumstances where resources are stretched.
Number 10, incidentally, appear to be saying the Durham Police are lying, which is a developing story.
As an example drive-through restaurants have opened during the last fortnight.
That used to be the liberal position - before Cummings Derangement Syndrome set in, of course.
The Police enforce the law and it can go to the courts (if it didn't get resolved with a fixed penalty notice). The Police have no authority to enforce what isn't in the law.
And yes to me my daughter is one of the most important people in the world. I wouldn't expect others to think the same about my daughter. I would expect others to think the same about their own.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7954151/Got-Brexit-UK-finally-leaves-EU-Britons-country-celebrate.html#comments
Yet loads on here are claiming the clamour about Dom is all coming from the 'usual suspects'. That's simply not true.