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.
What I am saying is that Philip claimed that the Police had confirmed no law was broken. That is simply untrue.
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
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.
Which was my point. That's what the Police have the authority to enforce.
When the Highway Code says you should do something it's because it's guidance but the is no law there. Police can't enforce that.
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?
So it should have not been made a law in the first place then. If laws are morally right to break or cause temptation by even the lawmakers to break them then they are crap laws in the first place. A lot of government law in this lockdown has been crap because even the lawmakers are tempted have broken them
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?
Firstly, would you be allowed into the hospital or care home?
Secondly, unfortunately many deaths are somewhat unpredictable. Would you visit your father if he'd suffered a serious heart attack, for example, and was given a 50/50 chance of pulling through?
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.
What I am saying is that Philip claimed that the Police had confirmed no law was broken. That is simply untrue.
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
How unfortunate that whether or not you give it the time of day has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case...
The discussion this morning suggests that it will be impossible to get close to consensus as to whether Dominic Cummings broke the law. I rather think he didn't, to the extent that there will probably be a reasonable doubt as to whether he didn't have a reasonable excuse to leave his home. As the law then stood having left his home he does not commit a offence if he then does stuff which would not have been a reasonable excuse for leaving home in the first place, like dancing to Abba songs which ought to be a separate offence anyway, imprisonable by up to 10 years, (see the 2020 Corona Regs Sec 6(1) though they were subsequently amended to close the loophole).
A consensus among the relevant people as to whether it is electorally damaging is a different matter. What the Durham Police are pleased to call the 'whole ethos of the guidance and regulation' is an utterly confused mess, out of which scrambled egg anyone can pull killer quotes for and against Mr Cummings. But broadly ordinary opinion looks hostile. Try the Daily Mail comments.
As it seems at this moment there look to me like there are millions of votes at stake in this (though not perhaps Philip Thompson's). I think Boris and Co will need a day or two to see. He is nowhere near safe.
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.
What I am saying is that Philip claimed that the Police had confirmed no law was broken. That is simply untrue.
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
Former Manchester Police Chief on Sky said that no law was broken but it could be inadvisable. Durham Police have said it was inadvisable but not said it was against the law. Not seen anyone from the Police say the law was broken.
Oh and the DCMO said it was a reasonable exception at the start of April. So pretty clear it's not illegal.
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.
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.
If he was well enough to drive, he was well enough to look after his child. He's not a doctor and had no way of knowing whether he would deteriorate. Oh, and we have two conflicting accounts of how his illness in fact progressed (was he confined to bed for ten days, was he dancing to ABBA?), so that's one more mystery to be cleared up.
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?
Firstly, would you be allowed into the hospital or care home?
Secondly, unfortunately many deaths are somewhat unpredictable. Would you visit your father if he'd suffered a serious heart attack, for example, and was given a 50/50 chance of pulling through?
If my Dad was potentially dying of a heart attack would I visit him? 1.01 would be a bet that I would. who wouldn't?
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.
What I am saying is that Philip claimed that the Police had confirmed no law was broken. That is simply untrue.
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
How unfortunate that whether or not you give it the time of day has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case...
Your view has no bearing on the outcome either - we're both just people discussing it on an internet forum, you plum!
So is your position that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and resign or be sacked?
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.
You mean like with the Rochdale girls?
Let me know when the authorities get round to solving all of those cases, and then I'll be happy to hear what they have to say about Cummings.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
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?
So it should have not been made a law in the first place then. If laws are morally right to break or cause temptation by even the lawmakers to break them then they are crap laws in the first place. A lot of government law in this lockdown has been crap because even the lawmakers are tempted have broken them
Well Cummings wasn't visiting dying parents, I am not talking about what he did, my point was that I cant believe people would respect the law rather than see their parents for the last time ever
The discussion this morning suggests that it will be impossible to get close to consensus as to whether Dominic Cummings broke the law. I rather think he didn't, to the extent that there will probably be a reasonable doubt as to whether he didn't have a reasonable excuse to leave his home. As the law then stood having left his home he does not commit a offence if he then does stuff which would not have been a reasonable excuse for leaving home in the first place, like dancing to Abba songs which ought to be a separate offence anyway, imprisonable by up to 10 years, (see the 2020 Corona Regs Sec 6(1) though they were subsequently amended to close the loophole).
A consensus among the relevant people as to whether it is electorally damaging is a different matter. What the Durham Police are pleased to call the 'whole ethos of the guidance and regulation' is an utterly confused mess, out of which scrambled egg anyone can pull killer quotes for and against Mr Cummings. But broadly ordinary opinion looks hostile. Try the Daily Mail comments.
As it seems at this moment there look to me like there are millions of votes at stake in this (though not perhaps Philip Thompson's). I think Boris and Co will need a day or two to see. He is nowhere near safe.
Millions of votes at stake? Not a single vote cast in 2024 will change because of this incident.
"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.
Is the problem that they are trying to tackle the problems, or that they have failed at tackling the problems? The article seems to be suggesting that PHE shoud have done less to stop cancer and obesity?
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?
Firstly, would you be allowed into the hospital or care home?
Secondly, unfortunately many deaths are somewhat unpredictable. Would you visit your father if he'd suffered a serious heart attack, for example, and was given a 50/50 chance of pulling through?
If my Dad was potentially dying of a heart attack would I visit him? 1.01 would be a bet that I would. who wouldn't?
That wasn't what I asked. I asked about the situation where he was seriously ill and may or may not pull through.
And no, I wouldn't if the rules said I mustn't. I'd Skype and comply with the rules.
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?
I see we can now add 'folk don't love their parents enough to break the law' to 'folk don't love their kids enough to break the law'.
Just not enough loving lawbreaking in this country.
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.
The same did apply to them.
At the beginning of the TV movie of Stephen King's "The Stand" (I haven't read the book) a guard at the millitary base developing a Superflu Bioweapon, which would go on to kill 99% of the world's population, broke the containment lockdown and escaped with his family to protect (he thought) his wife and small child.
By doing so he managed to release the virus and destroy the world. Now, C19 will not destroy the world, and this is not a Stephen King novel (or adaptation thereof), but the moral of the story is the same. Your attitude of "my kids come first" is exactly the same as the guard at the beginning of that story - by prioretising his family he ended up killing them and everyone else. Cummings may, at this fabled A1 service station, have infected someone and started a chain which resulted in someone's death - someone's parent, grandparent or possibly even their child.
Pleading the safety of your own kids is not good enough.
I do not think that Cummings will go. The rules were not made for people like him. Politically, I imagine that, whatever they say in public, the opposition parties will want him to stay in place. He tells us a lot about the Prime Minister and the more that people know he exists the better.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
I'll never get tired of 'There cannot be one rule for bosses and another for everyone else'.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
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.
What I am saying is that Philip claimed that the Police had confirmed no law was broken. That is simply untrue.
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
How unfortunate that whether or not you give it the time of day has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case...
Your view has no bearing on the outcome either - we're both just people discussing it on an internet forum, you plum!
So is your position that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and resign or be sacked?
I think that's a reasonable standard. I despise the culture of instant sackings for no reason other than ephemeral political wrangling.
I do not think that Cummings will go. The rules were not made for people like him. Politically, I imagine that, whatever they say in public, the opposition parties will want him to stay in place. He tells us a lot about the Prime Minister and the more that people know he exists the better.
Agree, there are not many people of influence who gain from him going. The biggest beneficiaries would be the cabinet and backbench senior tories but the cabinet are too dim to realise it and the backbenchers too frit to act.
The discussion this morning suggests that it will be impossible to get close to consensus as to whether Dominic Cummings broke the law. I rather think he didn't, to the extent that there will probably be a reasonable doubt as to whether he didn't have a reasonable excuse to leave his home. As the law then stood having left his home he does not commit a offence if he then does stuff which would not have been a reasonable excuse for leaving home in the first place, like dancing to Abba songs which ought to be a separate offence anyway, imprisonable by up to 10 years, (see the 2020 Corona Regs Sec 6(1) though they were subsequently amended to close the loophole).
A consensus among the relevant people as to whether it is electorally damaging is a different matter. What the Durham Police are pleased to call the 'whole ethos of the guidance and regulation' is an utterly confused mess, out of which scrambled egg anyone can pull killer quotes for and against Mr Cummings. But broadly ordinary opinion looks hostile. Try the Daily Mail comments.
As it seems at this moment there look to me like there are millions of votes at stake in this (though not perhaps Philip Thompson's). I think Boris and Co will need a day or two to see. He is nowhere near safe.
Millions of votes at stake? Not a single vote cast in 2024 will change because of this incident.
The truth lies between those two extremes.
A lot of not terribly political people are seething at this. People have sacrificed a lot over recent weeks and this gives the impression it's one rule for the Government and another for us (I think correct impression, you don't - but you can't deny it's the impression many have). Does that alienate a non-trivial number of swing voters? You bet it does.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
No law was broken.
He did not stay home. He did not stay safe. If he had the reasonable excuse that he was too ill and he needed childcare, he was driving without due care and attention. If he was not so ill that he needed childcare, he had left the house without reasonable excuse.
The discussion this morning suggests that it will be impossible to get close to consensus as to whether Dominic Cummings broke the law. I rather think he didn't, to the extent that there will probably be a reasonable doubt as to whether he didn't have a reasonable excuse to leave his home. As the law then stood having left his home he does not commit a offence if he then does stuff which would not have been a reasonable excuse for leaving home in the first place, like dancing to Abba songs which ought to be a separate offence anyway, imprisonable by up to 10 years, (see the 2020 Corona Regs Sec 6(1) though they were subsequently amended to close the loophole).
A consensus among the relevant people as to whether it is electorally damaging is a different matter. What the Durham Police are pleased to call the 'whole ethos of the guidance and regulation' is an utterly confused mess, out of which scrambled egg anyone can pull killer quotes for and against Mr Cummings. But broadly ordinary opinion looks hostile. Try the Daily Mail comments.
As it seems at this moment there look to me like there are millions of votes at stake in this (though not perhaps Philip Thompson's). I think Boris and Co will need a day or two to see. He is nowhere near safe.
Millions of votes at stake? Not a single vote cast in 2024 will change because of this incident.
I doubt that, to be honest. Cummings is making law abiding Tory voters look like mugs, that's not a good look. On a visceral level, as a Lefty Remainder, obviously I would be overjoyed to see him brought down. But the reason I think he should go is that he's endangering public health by diluting the message on social distancing. From a party political point of view I want him to stay in office because every minute he stays is pure poison for the government.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
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.
What I am saying is that Philip claimed that the Police had confirmed no law was broken. That is simply untrue.
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
How unfortunate that whether or not you give it the time of day has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case...
Your view has no bearing on the outcome either - we're both just people discussing it on an internet forum, you plum!
So is your position that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and resign or be sacked?
I think that's a reasonable standard. I despise the culture of instant sackings for no reason other than ephemeral political wrangling.
Have you ever called for a non-Tory to resign when they've done something less than been convicted of a criminal offence?
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?
Firstly, would you be allowed into the hospital or care home?
Secondly, unfortunately many deaths are somewhat unpredictable. Would you visit your father if he'd suffered a serious heart attack, for example, and was given a 50/50 chance of pulling through?
If my Dad was potentially dying of a heart attack would I visit him? 1.01 would be a bet that I would. who wouldn't?
That wasn't what I asked. I asked about the situation where he was seriously ill and may or may not pull through.
And no, I wouldn't if the rules said I mustn't. I'd Skype and comply with the rules.
"That wasn't what I asked. I asked about the situation where he was seriously ill and may or may not pull through."
I thought "potentially dying of a heart attack" was the situation you imagined? Anyway, the answer to your question is that if my Dad might be dying I would break the law to go and see him. I have broken it to go and see him several times in the last 10 weeks anyway
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?
So it should have not been made a law in the first place then. If laws are morally right to break or cause temptation by even the lawmakers to break them then they are crap laws in the first place. A lot of government law in this lockdown has been crap because even the lawmakers are tempted have broken them
Well Cummings wasn't visiting dying parents, I am not talking about what he did, my point was that I cant believe people would respect the law rather than see their parents for the last time ever
I did. My brother didn't. I put not risking giving him, or my Mother, CV19 above my feelz. Our kid didn't.
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?
Indeed. I am probably being far too cynical, but I catch myself reading 'I haven't been to see my 87 year old father who has mild dementia and lives 50 miles away since this started' with a bit of an inward eye roll. I wonder just how many visits some of those oldies got *before* Covid-19.
I'm struggling to see what's in this story. To me Cummings has been a bit off his oats with coronavirus (even before he caught it), but clearly the Government's enemies must hold him in far higher esteem than I do, given the foam flecked desperation to see him removed.
The discussion this morning suggests that it will be impossible to get close to consensus as to whether Dominic Cummings broke the law. I rather think he didn't, to the extent that there will probably be a reasonable doubt as to whether he didn't have a reasonable excuse to leave his home. As the law then stood having left his home he does not commit a offence if he then does stuff which would not have been a reasonable excuse for leaving home in the first place, like dancing to Abba songs which ought to be a separate offence anyway, imprisonable by up to 10 years, (see the 2020 Corona Regs Sec 6(1) though they were subsequently amended to close the loophole).
A consensus among the relevant people as to whether it is electorally damaging is a different matter. What the Durham Police are pleased to call the 'whole ethos of the guidance and regulation' is an utterly confused mess, out of which scrambled egg anyone can pull killer quotes for and against Mr Cummings. But broadly ordinary opinion looks hostile. Try the Daily Mail comments.
As it seems at this moment there look to me like there are millions of votes at stake in this (though not perhaps Philip Thompson's). I think Boris and Co will need a day or two to see. He is nowhere near safe.
Millions of votes at stake? Not a single vote cast in 2024 will change because of this incident.
It might. 2024 is a long way off but if predictions of a recession come true then voters may well feel betrayed that they lost their jobs following the rules when the government ignored them. It's the antithesis of we're all in it together. A precedent might be crashing out of the ERM which made people wonder why they'd lost their homes if the government was going to throw in the towel anyway.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
Not surprised to see the PB Tories verbatim following the CCHQ line.
I said what I was saying last night BEFORE there was "a line".
If it wasn’t a Tory person being defended you’d be calling for their resignation.
I'd never criticise a parent for looking after a three year old. To do so is reprehensible.
Even if what they did resulted in harm to someone else? So you would be fine for, say, someone to steal to look after a three year old? Or kill someone they thought was a peadophile? Or kidnap them from their foster parents?
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.
What I am saying is that Philip claimed that the Police had confirmed no law was broken. That is simply untrue.
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
How unfortunate that whether or not you give it the time of day has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case...
Your view has no bearing on the outcome either - we're both just people discussing it on an internet forum, you plum!
So is your position that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and resign or be sacked?
I think that's a reasonable standard. I despise the culture of instant sackings for no reason other than ephemeral political wrangling.
Have you ever called for a non-Tory to resign when they've done something less than been convicted of a criminal offence?
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
People are saying they made a decision not to visit parents because they were respecting the lockdown - I am saying I would visit them whatever the government told me, more to the point, I have done so quite a lot.
I am not even defending Cummings, and havent said anything about him one way or the other.
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.
you idiot there were two adults and the child was healthy
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?
People were self isolating and not going to see parents who were dieing not because of the risk of being put in jail but because they were told this sacrifice was worth it to save the lives of others.
There is a moral black hole at the heart of downing Street.
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?
I see we can now add 'folk don't love their parents enough to break the law' to 'folk don't love their kids enough to break the law'.
Just not enough loving lawbreaking in this country.
I am certainly guilty of loving my parents more than the I do the lockdown law, that is true
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
No law was broken.
He did not stay home. He did not stay safe. If he had the reasonable excuse that he was too ill and he needed childcare, he was driving without due care and attention. If he was not so ill that he needed childcare, he had left the house without reasonable excuse.
If he was fit enough to drive today but wouldn't be fit enough to take care of the kids in a couple of days time should he drove today or wait until he's too unwell to do so?
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.
you idiot there were two adults and the child was healthy
There were two sick adults and the child was three.
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.
What I am saying is that Philip claimed that the Police had confirmed no law was broken. That is simply untrue.
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
How unfortunate that whether or not you give it the time of day has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case...
Your view has no bearing on the outcome either - we're both just people discussing it on an internet forum, you plum!
So is your position that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and resign or be sacked?
I think that's a reasonable standard. I despise the culture of instant sackings for no reason other than ephemeral political wrangling.
Have you ever called for a non-Tory to resign when they've done something less than been convicted of a criminal offence?
Be honest now...
I genuinely don't because I consider it to be childish where no law has been broken. I don't want Labour politicians in office at any time, but I prefer to eject them using the ballot box rather than by harping on inconsequentials.
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?
People were self isolating and not going to see parents who were dieing not because of the risk of being put in jail but because they were told this sacrifice was worth it to save the lives of others.
There is a moral black hole at the heart of downing Street.
"People were self isolating and not going to see parents who were dieing not because of the risk of being put in jail but because they were told this sacrifice was worth it to save the lives of others."
I can't imagine anything could persuade me not to see them one last time, certainly not the current situation. Wouldn't require a moments thought.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
Not surprised to see the PB Tories verbatim following the CCHQ line.
I said what I was saying last night BEFORE there was "a line".
If it wasn’t a Tory person being defended you’d be calling for their resignation.
I'd never criticise a parent for looking after a three year old. To do so is reprehensible.
Even if what they did resulted in harm to someone else? So you would be fine for, say, someone to steal to look after a three year old? Or kill someone they thought was a peadophile? Or kidnap them from their foster parents?
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.
you idiot there were two adults and the child was healthy
Ah Malcolm! Thought you had gone of to sleep in an alcoholic torpor!
Haven't you run out of Buckfast yet? I'll send some more up to you with your benefits from London
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?
People were self isolating and not going to see parents who were dieing not because of the risk of being put in jail but because they were told this sacrifice was worth it to save the lives of others.
There is a moral black hole at the heart of downing Street.
Absolutely! It is pathetic to suggest fear exempts the whole family from quarantine. We were told to do our duty and perform a common struggle (and rightly so).
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?
I see we can now add 'folk don't love their parents enough to break the law' to 'folk don't love their kids enough to break the law'.
Just not enough loving lawbreaking in this country.
I am certainly guilty of loving my parents more than the I do the lockdown law, that is true
In the same way some folk love starting fires more than they love the laws on arson.
Sorry to be flippant, but the implication of your statement that law-abiding people are somehow in the wrong for not loving their parents enough sticks in the throat. Plenty of people have made sacrifices for what they are told is the greater good of the community and because it's the law, and to be told they don't love their families enough by you is unpleasant.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
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?
Firstly, would you be allowed into the hospital or care home?
Secondly, unfortunately many deaths are somewhat unpredictable. Would you visit your father if he'd suffered a serious heart attack, for example, and was given a 50/50 chance of pulling through?
If my Dad was potentially dying of a heart attack would I visit him? 1.01 would be a bet that I would. who wouldn't?
That wasn't what I asked. I asked about the situation where he was seriously ill and may or may not pull through.
And no, I wouldn't if the rules said I mustn't. I'd Skype and comply with the rules.
"That wasn't what I asked. I asked about the situation where he was seriously ill and may or may not pull through."
I thought "potentially dying of a heart attack" was the situation you imagined? Anyway, the answer to your question is that if my Dad might be dying I would break the law to go and see him. I have broken it to go and see him several times in the last 10 weeks anyway
Would you break into a hospital or care home that forbade visits?
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
No law was broken.
He did not stay home. He did not stay safe. If he had the reasonable excuse that he was too ill and he needed childcare, he was driving without due care and attention. If he was not so ill that he needed childcare, he had left the house without reasonable excuse.
If he was fit enough to drive today but wouldn't be fit enough to take care of the kids in a couple of days time should he drove today or wait until he's too unwell to do so?
If he could predict reliably how his illness was going to progress, he should take up a new career writing horoscopes.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
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?
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.
If he was well enough to drive, he was well enough to look after his child. He's not a doctor and had no way of knowing whether he would deteriorate. Oh, and we have two conflicting accounts of how his illness in fact progressed (was he confined to bed for ten days, was he dancing to ABBA?), so that's one more mystery to be cleared up.
Also was his wife in a coma given she was with him, did he have to carry her into the car prostrate.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
The next time I have a legal case, can I hire you to represent me? You seem to know a hell of a lot more about the law than lawyers, barristers and QCs.
Why you have not been made President of the Bar Council is beyond me....
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
No law was broken.
He did not stay home. He did not stay safe. If he had the reasonable excuse that he was too ill and he needed childcare, he was driving without due care and attention. If he was not so ill that he needed childcare, he had left the house without reasonable excuse.
If he was fit enough to drive today but wouldn't be fit enough to take care of the kids in a couple of days time should he drove today or wait until he's too unwell to do so?
If he could predict reliably how his illness was going to progress, he should take up a new career writing horoscopes.
It doesn't take a genius or a horoscope to know that the risks of deterioration are real. So you're saying he'd be better to do nothing until it was too late?
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
To avoid harm is a reason. Leaving a three year old without childcare is harmful. QED.
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
According to Cummings wife he was so ill he could barely stand up but he was okay to ferry his kid 250 miles to his parents .
Her article also amazingly didn’t mention the Durham trip !
Her interview back at the time was played this morning on R4, and according to her he was so ill that he couldn’t even get out of bed for more than a week and just lay there with his legs twitching (presumably to the rhythm of some ABBA hit or other).
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?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
No law was broken.
He did not stay home. He did not stay safe. If he had the reasonable excuse that he was too ill and he needed childcare, he was driving without due care and attention. If he was not so ill that he needed childcare, he had left the house without reasonable excuse.
If he was fit enough to drive today but wouldn't be fit enough to take care of the kids in a couple of days time should he drove today or wait until he's too unwell to do so?
If he could predict reliably how his illness was going to progress, he should take up a new career writing horoscopes.
It doesn't take a genius or a horoscope to know that the risks of deterioration are real. So you're saying he'd be better to do nothing until it was too late?
The Tickly-Cough Thompson defence: if you feel a bit peaky, you can hop in your car and drive to the other end of the country, just in case. I'm sure that's entirely consistent with Stay Home, Stay Safe.
Meanwhile, Extreme Precautionary Principle Philip simultaneously wants to take a high risk of chaos and disorder at the end of the year because he can't be arsed waiting till a pandemic is over to enter into proper negotiations with the EU at a time when they're not completely distracted.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
According to Cummings wife he was so ill he could barely stand up but he was okay to ferry his kid 250 miles to his parents .
Her article also amazingly didn’t mention the Durham trip !
Did he actually have it? When the COVID thing kicked off, for the first time in years the news wasn't all about Brexit and Dom's evil genius. Did he feign illness because we felt unloved and wanted attention?
According to Cummings wife he was so ill he could barely stand up but he was okay to ferry his kid 250 miles to his parents .
Her article also amazingly didn’t mention the Durham trip !
Did he actually have it? When the COVID thing kicked off, for the first time in years the news wasn't all about Brexit and Dom's evil genius. Did he feign illness because we felt unloved and wanted attention?
They sent him out a test kit but unfortunately it was redirected to several addresses and now lost in the post. Still counts as 43 successful tests mind.
Comments
Your claim appears to be that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and should resign or be sacked. That position is too ludicrous to give the time of day to it.
When the Highway Code says you should do something it's because it's guidance but the is no law there. Police can't enforce that.
Secondly, unfortunately many deaths are somewhat unpredictable. Would you visit your father if he'd suffered a serious heart attack, for example, and was given a 50/50 chance of pulling through?
A consensus among the relevant people as to whether it is electorally damaging is a different matter. What the Durham Police are pleased to call the 'whole ethos of the guidance and regulation' is an utterly confused mess, out of which scrambled egg anyone can pull killer quotes for and against Mr Cummings. But broadly ordinary opinion looks hostile. Try the Daily Mail comments.
As it seems at this moment there look to me like there are millions of votes at stake in this (though not perhaps Philip Thompson's). I think Boris and Co will need a day or two to see. He is nowhere near safe.
Oh and the DCMO said it was a reasonable exception at the start of April. So pretty clear it's not illegal.
So is your position that ONLY a criminal conviction counts as evidence that a person acted wrongly and resign or be sacked?
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
Correct.
You may leave your three year old with friends. Your choice. My children have only ever been looked after by family.
And no, I wouldn't if the rules said I mustn't. I'd Skype and comply with the rules.
Just not enough loving lawbreaking in this country.
By doing so he managed to release the virus and destroy the world. Now, C19 will not destroy the world, and this is not a Stephen King novel (or adaptation thereof), but the moral of the story is the same. Your attitude of "my kids come first" is exactly the same as the guard at the beginning of that story - by prioretising his family he ended up killing them and everyone else. Cummings may, at this fabled A1 service station, have infected someone and started a chain which resulted in someone's death - someone's parent, grandparent or possibly even their child.
Pleading the safety of your own kids is not good enough.
No law was broken.
A lot of not terribly political people are seething at this. People have sacrificed a lot over recent weeks and this gives the impression it's one rule for the Government and another for us (I think correct impression, you don't - but you can't deny it's the impression many have). Does that alienate a non-trivial number of swing voters? You bet it does.
On a visceral level, as a Lefty Remainder, obviously I would be overjoyed to see him brought down. But the reason I think he should go is that he's endangering public health by diluting the message on social distancing. From a party political point of view I want him to stay in office because every minute he stays is pure poison for the government.
Be honest now...
I thought "potentially dying of a heart attack" was the situation you imagined? Anyway, the answer to your question is that if my Dad might be dying I would break the law to go and see him. I have broken it to go and see him several times in the last 10 weeks anyway
I'm struggling to see what's in this story. To me Cummings has been a bit off his oats with coronavirus (even before he caught it), but clearly the Government's enemies must hold him in far higher esteem than I do, given the foam flecked desperation to see him removed.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
Rory Stewart
Phillip Hammond
etc
I am not even defending Cummings, and havent said anything about him one way or the other.
Bored with the left bleating on about Dominic. He's not going anywhere!
People were self isolating and not going to see parents who were dieing not because of the risk of being put in jail but because they were told this sacrifice was worth it to save the lives of others.
There is a moral black hole at the heart of downing Street.
It would be completely ridiculous policy and cause thousands of extra deaths.
This is certainly not what we were told we had to do.
I can't imagine anything could persuade me not to see them one last time, certainly not the current situation. Wouldn't require a moments thought.
Each to their own.
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1264162359733555202?s=20
Haven't you run out of Buckfast yet? I'll send some more up to you with your benefits from London
Sorry to be flippant, but the implication of your statement that law-abiding people are somehow in the wrong for not loving their parents enough sticks in the throat. Plenty of people have made sacrifices for what they are told is the greater good of the community and because it's the law, and to be told they don't love their families enough by you is unpleasant.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
We need some leadership from Boris now about getting the country open again!
End the lockdown
Get the schools open
Stop the furlough
From 1 June!
Not many I'd suggest - I suspect that Dom is on his way out.
And who has the short straw?
That's utterly bonkers.
Although not sure we should have a second pandemic wave just because you're bored.
Why you have not been made President of the Bar Council is beyond me....
No surprise to see the Tory PB fan club upvoting your post.
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
Her article also amazingly didn’t mention the Durham trip !
Meanwhile, Extreme Precautionary Principle Philip simultaneously wants to take a high risk of chaos and disorder at the end of the year because he can't be arsed waiting till a pandemic is over to enter into proper negotiations with the EU at a time when they're not completely distracted.
Do you have a split personality?
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry