Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Cummings Durham trip during the lockdown – the reaction co

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited May 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Cummings Durham trip during the lockdown – the reaction continues

Priti Patel yesterday: “We will not allow a small minority, a reckless minority to endanger us all so there will be penalties for those who break these mandatory measures.” What does “a source” have to say about this?

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Firsting Norman Lamont
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    Piers Morgan is slowly but surely losing it.

    He'll be faking photos again before long.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    The big winner so far is the cabinet. Nice to have Dom owing each one of them a favour b
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    eadric said:

    If the presser is not a car crash, and there are no more revelations tomorrow, then he survives

    When is the presser ? Is it 2 or 5 ?
    Seriously I never watch it but might tune in for this one.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002
    Jonathan said:

    The big winner so far is the cabinet. Nice to have Dom owing each one of them a favour b

    What favour?

    He said jump. They said "how high?"
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,798
    IshmaelZ said:

    Firsting Norman Lamont

    Talk about a red box.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    Scott_xP said:
    Maybe I've misunderstood the guidance, but I don't see anything in the instructions on "Self-isolation if you or someone you live with has coronavirus symptoms" that says "Send the children off to relatives." I would have sworn the children were meant to self-isolate along with the rest of the household:
    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/what-to-do-if-you-or-someone-you-live-with-has-coronavirus-symptoms/staying-at-home-if-you-or-someone-you-live-with-has-coronavirus-symptoms/
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    It's a fact of life that the rules don't apply equally to everybody. If Boris reckons Cummings is too important to sack, then he wont sack him.

    Would all Man Utd's 1995 squad been indulged as Cantona was when he kicked a fan at Palace?

    Has any member of the public been fined/prosecuted/sacked for doing as Cummings did during the lockdown by the way?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    Scott_xP said:
    Only Sharma and Van Tam are weaker than those two.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2020
    The reverse Roger Whittaker!

    There was a great Alas Smith and Jones sketch where Smith was singing this song on Durham railway station only for the loudspeaker to announce his train had been cancelled, so he switched to "Homeward Bound" by Simon and Garfunkel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XcuN5hZwk
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    Chris said:

    I'm still trying to piece together the case for the defence from the various bits of information flying around the media.

    Is this more or less it?

    Cummings's wife already had symptoms. Cummings assumed he had also been infected, though he wasn't symptomatic yet. To save his child from harm in case both of them became incapacitated and it was impossible to arrange for it to be cared for in London, all three of them (including the already symptomatic Mrs Cummings) travelled with the child to county Durham, where they had the offer of childcare from family members. After Cummings developed symptoms, all three of them self-isolated in county Durham. Later, they realised that if people learned what had happened they might not agree that the journey to county Durham was justified, and decided to give people the impression that they had all self-isolated in London.

    Is that right?

    Useful and (I think) pretty much nails it.

    Thus -

    (i) In a sub-optimal situation he chose the course of action most desirable for him and his family, in the process disregarding the instructions that he and his boss had ordered the public to abide by.

    or

    (ii) Faced with an absolutely appalling and dreadful dilemma - with the life of his small child at stake - he did what any husband and father worth his salt would do, even though it was against the (non legally binding) rules.

    You decide.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    isam said:

    It's a fact of life that the rules don't apply equally to everybody. If Boris reckons Cummings is too important to sack, then he wont sack him.

    Would all Man Utd's 1995 squad been indulged as Cantona was when he kicked a fan at Palace?

    Has any member of the public been fined/prosecuted/sacked for doing as Cummings did during the lockdown by the way?

    I think this is a fair point - but I don't think Cummings is indispensable and the rules for politicians are stricter than they are for others. That is simply a fact of life.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Scott_xP said:
    If they could wait until the 2nd of June before they act on this that'd be great thanks.

    Likewise if anyone has CCTV footage of Dom French kissing 16 strangers in a Moto service station forecourt leave it till summer OK?
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    The greater scandal would be if the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, wittingly or unwittingly, gave a prepared answer to a planted question, on the day the Guardian first questioned the Government, exonerating Covid symptomatic parents seeking help from extended family regardless of the scientific advice at the time... presumably, journalists are working on this for tomorrow’s papers...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    Dom's been the story before. But it was always previously along the leave-remain axis.
    He's pissed off the Hartley-Brewers and not just the Cadwallrs, this is the difference this time.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    I'm still trying to piece together the case for the defence from the various bits of information flying around the media.

    Is this more or less it?

    Cummings's wife already had symptoms. Cummings assumed he had also been infected, though he wasn't symptomatic yet. To save his child from harm in case both of them became incapacitated and it was impossible to arrange for it to be cared for in London, all three of them (including the already symptomatic Mrs Cummings) travelled with the child to county Durham, where they had the offer of childcare from family members. After Cummings developed symptoms, all three of them self-isolated in county Durham. Later, they realised that if people learned what had happened they might not agree that the journey to county Durham was justified, and decided to give people the impression that they had all self-isolated in London.

    Is that right?

    Useful and (I think) pretty much nails it.

    Thus -

    (i) In a sub-optimal situation he chose the course of action most desirable for him and his family, in the process disregarding the instructions that he and his boss had ordered the public to abide by.

    or

    (ii) Faced with an absolutely appalling and dreadful dilemma - with the life of his small child at stake - he did what any husband and father worth his salt would do, even though it was against the (non legally binding) rules.

    You decide.
    Even if people are going to argue that the child was in such imminent danger of harm as to justify Cummings himself setting aside the guidance about self-isolation and travelling from London to county Durham, I haven't seen any justification for the symptomatic Mrs Cummings accompanying him.

    Isn't it obvious that these people just decided the rules didn't apply to them?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    I'm still trying to piece together the case for the defence from the various bits of information flying around the media.

    Is this more or less it?

    Cummings's wife already had symptoms. Cummings assumed he had also been infected, though he wasn't symptomatic yet. To save his child from harm in case both of them became incapacitated and it was impossible to arrange for it to be cared for in London, all three of them (including the already symptomatic Mrs Cummings) travelled with the child to county Durham, where they had the offer of childcare from family members. After Cummings developed symptoms, all three of them self-isolated in county Durham. Later, they realised that if people learned what had happened they might not agree that the journey to county Durham was justified, and decided to give people the impression that they had all self-isolated in London.

    Is that right?

    Useful and (I think) pretty much nails it.

    Thus -

    (i) In a sub-optimal situation he chose the course of action most desirable for him and his family, in the process disregarding the instructions that he and his boss had ordered the public to abide by.

    or

    (ii) Faced with an absolutely appalling and dreadful dilemma - with the life of his small child at stake - he did what any husband and father worth his salt would do, even though it was against the (non legally binding) rules.

    You decide.
    Even if people are going to argue that the child was in such imminent danger of harm as to justify Cummings himself setting aside the guidance about self-isolation and travelling from London to county Durham, I haven't seen any justification for the symptomatic Mrs Cummings accompanying him.

    Isn't it obvious that these people just decided the rules didn't apply to them?
    It does seem so
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    I see that arch-Remainer (checks notes) Julia Hartley-Brewer is putting her ha’penny’s worth in.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Pulpstar said:

    Dom's been the story before. But it was always previously along the leave-remain axis.
    He's pissed off the Hartley-Brewers and not just the Cadwallrs, this is the difference this time.

    I see I was a little late to this...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Rexel56 said:

    The greater scandal would be if the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, wittingly or unwittingly, gave a prepared answer to a planted question, on the day the Guardian first questioned the Government, exonerating Covid symptomatic parents seeking help from extended family regardless of the scientific advice at the time... presumably, journalists are working on this for tomorrow’s papers...

    I really wouldn't want to be the science person at the press conference today.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    If Cummings survives (he shouldn't...I mean he really shouldn't)...it would show just how much BoJo needs him, or is dependant on him, or Cummings is controlling him...

    BoJo and Cummings seems akin to a dysfunctional marriage where there is coercive control and just a whole load of weird shit going on...the pair of them are very strange people....
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999
    edited May 2020
    MasSiVe INtelLeCt, MasSiVe viRaL loAD

    https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1264178461628870658?s=20
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    Alistair said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If they could wait until the 2nd of June before they act on this that'd be great thanks.

    Likewise if anyone has CCTV footage of Dom French kissing 16 strangers in a Moto service station forecourt leave it till summer OK?
    I think you have a good bet there.

    Not quite as good as your position against Trump but good.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,766
    Scott_xP said:
    If he cares so deeply about them, then he wont mind giving up his job to spend more time with them will he?
  • This story has been such an odd hill to die on
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    tlg86 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    The greater scandal would be if the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, wittingly or unwittingly, gave a prepared answer to a planted question, on the day the Guardian first questioned the Government, exonerating Covid symptomatic parents seeking help from extended family regardless of the scientific advice at the time... presumably, journalists are working on this for tomorrow’s papers...

    I really wouldn't want to be the science person at the press conference today.
    Harries has batted a bit for the Gov't on schools (Which is a genuine policy/science decision). Will be interesting to see what she says about the possibility of transmission at service station loos should anyone ask her...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    tyson said:

    If Cummings survives (he shouldn't...I mean he really shouldn't)...it would show just how much BoJo needs him, or is dependant on him, or Cummings is controlling him...

    BoJo and Cummings seems akin to a dysfunctional marriage where there is coercive control and just a whole load of weird shit going on...the pair of them are very strange people....

    Yep. That will be the big takeaway.

    Dirk Bogarde to Johnson's James Fox.
  • Scott_xP said:
    They've been told here to do similar it seems.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Scott_xP said:
    Strikes me as a better idea for them to just not say anything about it at all and refer any questions to Cummings
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,798
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    I'm still trying to piece together the case for the defence from the various bits of information flying around the media.

    Is this more or less it?

    Cummings's wife already had symptoms. Cummings assumed he had also been infected, though he wasn't symptomatic yet. To save his child from harm in case both of them became incapacitated and it was impossible to arrange for it to be cared for in London, all three of them (including the already symptomatic Mrs Cummings) travelled with the child to county Durham, where they had the offer of childcare from family members. After Cummings developed symptoms, all three of them self-isolated in county Durham. Later, they realised that if people learned what had happened they might not agree that the journey to county Durham was justified, and decided to give people the impression that they had all self-isolated in London.

    Is that right?

    Useful and (I think) pretty much nails it.

    Thus -

    (i) In a sub-optimal situation he chose the course of action most desirable for him and his family, in the process disregarding the instructions that he and his boss had ordered the public to abide by.

    or

    (ii) Faced with an absolutely appalling and dreadful dilemma - with the life of his small child at stake - he did what any husband and father worth his salt would do, even though it was against the (non legally binding) rules.

    You decide.
    Except Cummings Jr's life was never in any danger, was it? Neither parent was sick enough to go to hospital so should have been able to keep a three year old alive via CBeebies and pieces of toast. If they had gone into hospital the brother in law in London could have looked after the kid. Presumably they didn't worry about the kid getting Covid, because as we all know there is no risk of that. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to get all the kids to go back to school. Or is that only the little people's kids?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    tyson said:

    If Cummings survives (he shouldn't...I mean he really shouldn't)...it would show just how much BoJo needs him, or is dependant on him, or Cummings is controlling him...
    [....]

    Yep. The story isn't about Cummings any more. It's about the complete corruption of the Johnson government.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Strikes me as a better idea for them to just not say anything about it at all and refer any questions to Cummings
    I'd keep my gob shut if I was a Tory MP right now, you're either defending the indefensible or harming your career chances.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Rexel56 said:

    The greater scandal would be if the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, wittingly or unwittingly, gave a prepared answer to a planted question, on the day the Guardian first questioned the Government, exonerating Covid symptomatic parents seeking help from extended family regardless of the scientific advice at the time... presumably, journalists are working on this for tomorrow’s papers...

    I really wouldn't want to be the science person at the press conference today.
    Harries has batted a bit for the Gov't on schools (Which is a genuine policy/science decision). Will be interesting to see what she says about the possibility of transmission at service station loos should anyone ask her...

    It's slightly surreal thinking that Mrs Dom taking a dump at a motorway service station could take such prominence....did she, or didn't she? and if she did, did she close the lid before she flushed...or did she spread Covid microbes from her faecal matter into a public area?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    The more one thinks about it, the more absolutely stupid it seems, whatever the motivation was.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Strikes me as a better idea for them to just not say anything about it at all and refer any questions to Cummings
    I'd keep my gob shut if I was a Tory MP right now, you're either defending the indefensible or harming your career chances.
    I think a certain Jeremy Hunt has particularly enjoyed his glass of burgundy this lunch time....
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    I'm still trying to piece together the case for the defence from the various bits of information flying around the media.

    Is this more or less it?

    Cummings's wife already had symptoms. Cummings assumed he had also been infected, though he wasn't symptomatic yet. To save his child from harm in case both of them became incapacitated and it was impossible to arrange for it to be cared for in London, all three of them (including the already symptomatic Mrs Cummings) travelled with the child to county Durham, where they had the offer of childcare from family members. After Cummings developed symptoms, all three of them self-isolated in county Durham. Later, they realised that if people learned what had happened they might not agree that the journey to county Durham was justified, and decided to give people the impression that they had all self-isolated in London.

    Is that right?

    Useful and (I think) pretty much nails it.

    Thus -

    (i) In a sub-optimal situation he chose the course of action most desirable for him and his family, in the process disregarding the instructions that he and his boss had ordered the public to abide by.

    or

    (ii) Faced with an absolutely appalling and dreadful dilemma - with the life of his small child at stake - he did what any husband and father worth his salt would do, even though it was against the (non legally binding) rules.

    You decide.
    Except Cummings Jr's life was never in any danger, was it? Neither parent was sick enough to go to hospital so should have been able to keep a three year old alive via CBeebies and pieces of toast. If they had gone into hospital the brother in law in London could have looked after the kid. Presumably they didn't worry about the kid getting Covid, because as we all know there is no risk of that. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to get all the kids to go back to school. Or is that only the little people's kids?
    This is why I think he has committed an offence under the Rona Regulations. Philip Thompson says it was to "prevent harm". I say he didn't have to do it to prevent harm. Worst case he could have called social services.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999
    The last resort of Tories not entirely devoid of principle, they're all as bad as each other.

    https://twitter.com/pmasterton1985/status/1264145194196271104?s=20
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    Just checked back in and yes

    Cummings is driving everyone crackers

    He should go but I do not expect him to

    Boris needs to come out fighting and I do not expect him to

    Covid lockdown is peoples comfort zone and they do not want to leave

    And it is bank holiday
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533

    This story has been such an odd hill to die on

    Yes...if we look away for a moment from the rights and wrongs of it, any remotely competent public relations operation would simply stop feeding the story. It's weird.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2020
    tyson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Strikes me as a better idea for them to just not say anything about it at all and refer any questions to Cummings
    I'd keep my gob shut if I was a Tory MP right now, you're either defending the indefensible or harming your career chances.
    By the way,.....I heard from Roger...all good...he sent me a sublime photo he captured of a swan.....
    Good to see the jetset in the SofF haven't had to change their diet during lockdown
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2020
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,766
    edited May 2020
    https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1264202750486814720

    Retweeted by Piers. Followers:7.5m

    If this isn't a comms disaster, I don't know what is.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    However, I think Cummings will go, even if it's just a token resignation. I note the careful wording in the coordinated messages of "support" from cabinet members: 1) he was acting as a concerned parent; 2) politicising the situation is wrong. They are not actually saying it's OK.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751

    This story has been such an odd hill to die on

    Or, indeed, ditch to die in.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999
    eadric said:

    This seems right. They should have used the emotional defence

    https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1264207034494435328?s=21

    But they didn't, so...
  • What this story makes me wonder is that if the Tory PR strategy really is terrible and we just didn't notice because of how often Corbyn's team (and Corbyn) would drop Labour in it and distract the population?

    Labour has handled their response very well, it's like a complete flip.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    edited May 2020
    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    I'm still trying to piece together the case for the defence from the various bits of information flying around the media.

    Is this more or less it?

    Cummings's wife already had symptoms. Cummings assumed he had also been infected, though he wasn't symptomatic yet. To save his child from harm in case both of them became incapacitated and it was impossible to arrange for it to be cared for in London, all three of them (including the already symptomatic Mrs Cummings) travelled with the child to county Durham, where they had the offer of childcare from family members. After Cummings developed symptoms, all three of them self-isolated in county Durham. Later, they realised that if people learned what had happened they might not agree that the journey to county Durham was justified, and decided to give people the impression that they had all self-isolated in London.

    Is that right?

    Useful and (I think) pretty much nails it.

    Thus -

    (i) In a sub-optimal situation he chose the course of action most desirable for him and his family, in the process disregarding the instructions that he and his boss had ordered the public to abide by.

    or

    (ii) Faced with an absolutely appalling and dreadful dilemma - with the life of his small child at stake - he did what any husband and father worth his salt would do, even though it was against the (non legally binding) rules.

    You decide.
    Even if people are going to argue that the child was in such imminent danger of harm as to justify Cummings himself setting aside the guidance about self-isolation and travelling from London to county Durham, I haven't seen any justification for the symptomatic Mrs Cummings accompanying him.

    Isn't it obvious that these people just decided the rules didn't apply to them?
    The verdict is in on the rank hypocrisy charge and it is unanimous. Guilty. The usual sentence for this in politics is loss of job. So the question then is - are there mitigating circumstances which justify a lesser sentence? Answer surely is "yes" if his actions probably saved the life of any tiny defenceless toddler let alone his own.

    But did they? - I'm skeptical but people must make up their own minds.
  • I don't understand the comms strategy here.

    If they were going to defend Cummings, why go for the horrifically unattractive "Classic Dom... Super Dad" line? Why not just say, "he made a serious mistake but was trying to do what he saw as the best for his family... Boris was very angry but has decided to forgive him as we all make mistakes"?

    The only reason I can think of is that Johnson was well aware of where Cummings was, and approved it. That's a dangerous position and means the story has legs.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    isam said:
    "If the individuals do not have access to care support, formal care support or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs."

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751
    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    I'm still trying to piece together the case for the defence from the various bits of information flying around the media.

    Is this more or less it?

    Cummings's wife already had symptoms. Cummings assumed he had also been infected, though he wasn't symptomatic yet. To save his child from harm in case both of them became incapacitated and it was impossible to arrange for it to be cared for in London, all three of them (including the already symptomatic Mrs Cummings) travelled with the child to county Durham, where they had the offer of childcare from family members. After Cummings developed symptoms, all three of them self-isolated in county Durham. Later, they realised that if people learned what had happened they might not agree that the journey to county Durham was justified, and decided to give people the impression that they had all self-isolated in London.

    Is that right?

    Useful and (I think) pretty much nails it.

    Thus -

    (i) In a sub-optimal situation he chose the course of action most desirable for him and his family, in the process disregarding the instructions that he and his boss had ordered the public to abide by.

    or

    (ii) Faced with an absolutely appalling and dreadful dilemma - with the life of his small child at stake - he did what any husband and father worth his salt would do, even though it was against the (non legally binding) rules.

    You decide.
    Even if people are going to argue that the child was in such imminent danger of harm as to justify Cummings himself setting aside the guidance about self-isolation and travelling from London to county Durham, I haven't seen any justification for the symptomatic Mrs Cummings accompanying him.

    Isn't it obvious that these people just decided the rules didn't apply to them?
    The verdict is in on the rank hypocrisy charge and it is unanimous. Guilty. The usual sentence for this in politics is loss of job. So the question then is - are there mitigating circumstances which justify a lesser sentence? Answer surely is "yes" if his actions probably saved the life of any tiny defenceless toddler let alone his own.

    But did they? - I'm skeptical but people must make up their own minds.
    Yes, but the point I was making was that even if people accept the argument that the child was in danger of harm, there was no justification for Mrs Cummings making the trip to Durham too, particularly as she was apparently already ill with COVID-19.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    This seems right. They should have used the emotional defence

    https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1264207034494435328?s=21

    But they didn't, so...
    Yeah. They’ve fucked it up. I still think he might cling on.
    He will cling on but that is better for the Opposition. A living reminder that, despite protestations, Cummings is part of the elite. Keep him where he is.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002
    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
  • I don't understand the comms strategy here.

    If they were going to defend Cummings, why go for the horrifically unattractive "Classic Dom... Super Dad" line? Why not just say, "he made a serious mistake but was trying to do what he saw as the best for his family... Boris was very angry but has decided to forgive him as we all make mistakes"?

    The only reason I can think of is that Johnson was well aware of where Cummings was, and approved it. That's a dangerous position and means the story has legs.

    I genuinely wonder if the Tory PR operation just is that bad, we just haven't noticed before because Labour was so much worse.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
    Devil's advocate, maybe his partner doesn't get on with her brother. I dunno.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    DougSeal said:

    isam said:
    "If the individuals do not have access to care support, formal care support or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs."

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.
    I am not defending him but if anyone thinks any parent would hand their child to the local authority when family were available, no matter the distance, please declare so
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,600

    This story has been such an odd hill to die on

    +1
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
    Who are they and their relationship
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    This seems right. They should have used the emotional defence

    https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1264207034494435328?s=21

    But they didn't, so...
    Yeah. They’ve fucked it up. I still think he might cling on.
    I hope he clings on. He's now pure poison for Johnson but they are now intertwined in a spectacular death spiral. Wonderful!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,563
    I am sad to say that I think Cummings will have to go.

    Not sad for the man. He was a fool to break the rules in the way he did and think he was above reprimand for it. It was an arrogance that has always typified him from what I have seen.

    But I am sad for two specific reasons.

    One because it gives a win to the scum who have always hated him simply because he was effective and on the opposite side from them in arguments- and I include a fair few on here in that description.

    And two because he was undoubtedly right in the vast majority of things he did. He was a huge asset to both the Governance of this country and the Leave campaign.

    But it appears that success then breeds, or rather reinforces, that arrogance.

    No one should be above the law when people's lives are at stake, no one should get away with the crass hypocrisy he has displayed and no one should take the public for fools when trying to protect ones own career. He has done all these things and so should not survive.

    Whether he will or not is something I am incapable of predicting.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    What this story makes me wonder is that if the Tory PR strategy really is terrible and we just didn't notice because of how often Corbyn's team (and Corbyn) would drop Labour in it and distract the population?

    Labour has handled their response very well, it's like a complete flip.

    The Corbyn team always went in to hard on Tory fuckups which caused an instant rally to the defence of the fuckerer uperer

    Starmer is giving them space, it makes the "don't politicise this" defence look utterly ridiculous as no one is politicising it.
  • Andy_JS said:

    This story has been such an odd hill to die on

    +1
    Possibly the only time you've agreed with me?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    isam said:
    "If the individuals do not have access to care support, formal care support or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs."

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.
    I am not defending him but if anyone thinks any parent would hand their child to the local authority when family were available, no matter the distance, please declare so
    I'm 100% sure they wouldn't but it is unlikely the law would take the view that the local authority is unsafe. It's not ideal but the purpose of the regs is to prevent virus spread. They will be interpreted in that light.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,600

    I am sad to say that I think Cummings will have to go.

    Not sad for the man. He was a fool to break the rules in the way he did and think he was above reprimand for it. It was an arrogance that has always typified him from what I have seen.

    But I am sad for two specific reasons.

    One because it gives a win to the scum who have always hated him simply because he was effective and on the opposite side from them in arguments- and I include a fair few on here in that description.

    And two because he was undoubtedly right in the vast majority of things he did. He was a huge asset to both the Governance of this country and the Leave campaign.

    But it appears that success then breeds, or rather reinforces, that arrogance.

    No one should be above the law when people's lives are at stake, no one should get away with the crass hypocrisy he has displayed and no one should take the public for fools when trying to protect ones own career. He has done all these things and so should not survive.

    Whether he will or not is something I am incapable of predicting.

    I agree, especially when he wrote that prophetic blog post about pandemics about 14 months ago.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
    And he is a key worker so would have access to local council childcare.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102

    I am sad to say that I think Cummings will have to go.

    Not sad for the man. He was a fool to break the rules in the way he did and think he was above reprimand for it. It was an arrogance that has always typified him from what I have seen.

    But I am sad for two specific reasons.

    One because it gives a win to the scum who have always hated him simply because he was effective and on the opposite side from them in arguments- and I include a fair few on here in that description.

    And two because he was undoubtedly right in the vast majority of things he did. He was a huge asset to both the Governance of this country and the Leave campaign.

    But it appears that success then breeds, or rather reinforces, that arrogance.

    No one should be above the law when people's lives are at stake, no one should get away with the crass hypocrisy he has displayed and no one should take the public for fools when trying to protect ones own career. He has done all these things and so should not survive.

    Whether he will or not is something I am incapable of predicting.

    He should go but to be honest, if he does does anyone thinks he will not be involved even if he is not at no 10
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226

    kinabalu said:

    Chris said:

    I'm still trying to piece together the case for the defence from the various bits of information flying around the media.

    Is this more or less it?

    Cummings's wife already had symptoms. Cummings assumed he had also been infected, though he wasn't symptomatic yet. To save his child from harm in case both of them became incapacitated and it was impossible to arrange for it to be cared for in London, all three of them (including the already symptomatic Mrs Cummings) travelled with the child to county Durham, where they had the offer of childcare from family members. After Cummings developed symptoms, all three of them self-isolated in county Durham. Later, they realised that if people learned what had happened they might not agree that the journey to county Durham was justified, and decided to give people the impression that they had all self-isolated in London.

    Is that right?

    Useful and (I think) pretty much nails it.

    Thus -

    (i) In a sub-optimal situation he chose the course of action most desirable for him and his family, in the process disregarding the instructions that he and his boss had ordered the public to abide by.

    or

    (ii) Faced with an absolutely appalling and dreadful dilemma - with the life of his small child at stake - he did what any husband and father worth his salt would do, even though it was against the (non legally binding) rules.

    You decide.
    Except Cummings Jr's life was never in any danger, was it? Neither parent was sick enough to go to hospital so should have been able to keep a three year old alive via CBeebies and pieces of toast. If they had gone into hospital the brother in law in London could have looked after the kid. Presumably they didn't worry about the kid getting Covid, because as we all know there is no risk of that. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to get all the kids to go back to school. Or is that only the little people's kids?
    I agree. It stretches credulity to the limit and beyond. But such is the defence he has ordered his representatives to put in.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    I am sad to say that I think Cummings will have to go.

    Not sad for the man. He was a fool to break the rules in the way he did and think he was above reprimand for it. It was an arrogance that has always typified him from what I have seen.

    But I am sad for two specific reasons.

    One because it gives a win to the scum who have always hated him simply because he was effective and on the opposite side from them in arguments- and I include a fair few on here in that description.

    And two because he was undoubtedly right in the vast majority of things he did. He was a huge asset to both the Governance of this country and the Leave campaign.

    But it appears that success then breeds, or rather reinforces, that arrogance.

    No one should be above the law when people's lives are at stake, no one should get away with the crass hypocrisy he has displayed and no one should take the public for fools when trying to protect ones own career. He has done all these things and so should not survive.

    Whether he will or not is something I am incapable of predicting.

    He took on education with the brief to decentralise it.

    He ended with a vastly more centralised education system.

    He was completely wrong.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,653
    murali_s said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    This seems right. They should have used the emotional defence

    https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1264207034494435328?s=21

    But they didn't, so...
    Yeah. They’ve fucked it up. I still think he might cling on.
    I hope he clings on. He's now pure poison for Johnson but they are now intertwined in a spectacular death spiral. Wonderful!

    I doubt Cummings will go and I doubt any opposition party will be too upset by that. My guess is that they beieve the more people see of him, and learn how dependent Johnson is on him, the better.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,898
    Afternoon all :)

    My only thought is the degree to which Johnson's desire to radically transform Britain as he sees it to a new post-EU state is dependent on having Cummings and No.10 to whip the Civil Service into line.

    IF Cummings is forced out, the power of No.10 will be weakened and the civil service will, as so might see it, seek to frustrate the Prime Minister's ambition.

    The experience of watching Boris as London Mayor is he has an instinctive distrust of career public servants and prefers personal appointments with power centralised close to him and by-passing the orthodox channels.

    He wouldn't be the first Prime Minister to operate that way - he won't be the last.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    Alistair said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
    And he is a key worker so would have access to local council childcare.
    Please answer this

    Would you hand your children to the local council rather than family, irrespective of how far they are away
  • I don't understand the comms strategy here.

    If they were going to defend Cummings, why go for the horrifically unattractive "Classic Dom... Super Dad" line? Why not just say, "he made a serious mistake but was trying to do what he saw as the best for his family... Boris was very angry but has decided to forgive him as we all make mistakes"?

    The only reason I can think of is that Johnson was well aware of where Cummings was, and approved it. That's a dangerous position and means the story has legs.

    I genuinely wonder if the Tory PR operation just is that bad, we just haven't noticed before because Labour was so much worse.
    That may be correct.

    It's a bizarrely bad line, inflicting needless damage by actively insulting the public. And there was another obvious line of defence which was nowhere near as awful.

    As I say, it leads me to suspect Johnson knew so they had to go for the extreme defence. But it could be they are just crap.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,720

    I don't understand the comms strategy here.

    If they were going to defend Cummings, why go for the horrifically unattractive "Classic Dom... Super Dad" line? Why not just say, "he made a serious mistake but was trying to do what he saw as the best for his family... Boris was very angry but has decided to forgive him as we all make mistakes"?

    The only reason I can think of is that Johnson was well aware of where Cummings was, and approved it. That's a dangerous position and means the story has legs.

    I genuinely wonder if the Tory PR operation just is that bad, we just haven't noticed before because Labour was so much worse.
    I think that obvious. Labour are not overdoing it, playing with Dom and Bozo like a cat with a mouse. Let the story stew for a while, no need to put him out of our misery...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    edited May 2020
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    isam said:
    "If the individuals do not have access to care support, formal care support or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs."

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.
    I am not defending him but if anyone thinks any parent would hand their child to the local authority when family were available, no matter the distance, please declare so
    I'm 100% sure they wouldn't but it is unlikely the law would take the view that the local authority is unsafe. It's not ideal but the purpose of the regs is to prevent virus spread. They will be interpreted in that light.
    No one who loves their children will hand their children to a LA when family is available no matter the circumstances
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,999

    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
    Who are they and their relationship
    What does that matter? Surely no 'parent would hand their child to the local authority when family were available'?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,908

    I don't understand the comms strategy here.

    If they were going to defend Cummings, why go for the horrifically unattractive "Classic Dom... Super Dad" line? Why not just say, "he made a serious mistake but was trying to do what he saw as the best for his family... Boris was very angry but has decided to forgive him as we all make mistakes"?

    The only reason I can think of is that Johnson was well aware of where Cummings was, and approved it. That's a dangerous position and means the story has legs.

    Yes that's my suspicion. No. 10 knew he'd scarpered, so if they did sack him now and it comes out they knew they will then be asked "why didn't you sack him six weeks ago?"
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2020
    Has any mere mortal been prosecuted or punished in any way for breaking the lockdown as Cummings did?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    I don't understand the comms strategy here.

    If they were going to defend Cummings, why go for the horrifically unattractive "Classic Dom... Super Dad" line? Why not just say, "he made a serious mistake but was trying to do what he saw as the best for his family... Boris was very angry but has decided to forgive him as we all make mistakes"?

    The only reason I can think of is that Johnson was well aware of where Cummings was, and approved it. That's a dangerous position and means the story has legs.

    They are choosing their words carefully. Any parent cares for their children; don't politicise this issue. It looks to me they are setting up for the reverse ferret. When Dom eventually claims he will resign to stop the story damaging the government he loves, they can switch to warm words about Dom doing the right thing
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    Whether Cummings stays or goes the political damage has been done. Resignation is the least of it, it’s the hypocrisy that does the harm.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,600
    glw said:

    I don't understand the comms strategy here.

    If they were going to defend Cummings, why go for the horrifically unattractive "Classic Dom... Super Dad" line? Why not just say, "he made a serious mistake but was trying to do what he saw as the best for his family... Boris was very angry but has decided to forgive him as we all make mistakes"?

    The only reason I can think of is that Johnson was well aware of where Cummings was, and approved it. That's a dangerous position and means the story has legs.

    Yes that's my suspicion. No. 10 knew he'd scarpered, so if they did sack him now and it comes out they knew they will then be asked "why didn't you sack him six weeks ago?"
    Maybe it coincided with Johnson being taken to hospital so he wasn't able to get a grip on the situation. I don't know the dates involved.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    Alistair said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
    And he is a key worker so would have access to local council childcare.
    Please answer this

    Would you hand your children to the local council rather than family, irrespective of how far they are away
    Or put it another way - would you carry a highly contagious potentially lethal virus to somewhere where the contagion rate was very low in preference to temporarily handing your children to the care of the local council until you recover?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,766

    Alistair said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
    And he is a key worker so would have access to local council childcare.
    Please answer this

    Would you hand your children to the local council rather than family, irrespective of how far they are away
    There's this old thing, called honour. It used to be highly thought of.

    If we give Cummings the benefit and he genuinely did this for his child's sake, he should do the honourable thing and resign, as he has clearly extremely seriously undermined the national effort and his entire government's virus strategy.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    I am sad to say that I think Cummings will have to go.

    Not sad for the man. He was a fool to break the rules in the way he did and think he was above reprimand for it. It was an arrogance that has always typified him from what I have seen.

    But I am sad for two specific reasons.

    One because it gives a win to the scum who have always hated him simply because he was effective and on the opposite side from them in arguments- and I include a fair few on here in that description.

    And two because he was undoubtedly right in the vast majority of things he did. He was a huge asset to both the Governance of this country and the Leave campaign.

    But it appears that success then breeds, or rather reinforces, that arrogance.

    No one should be above the law when people's lives are at stake, no one should get away with the crass hypocrisy he has displayed and no one should take the public for fools when trying to protect ones own career. He has done all these things and so should not survive.

    Whether he will or not is something I am incapable of predicting.


    Comrade...I think scum is a bit harsh for people who disagree with Cummings on ideological grounds....

    it's more preferable being called a c***
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited May 2020
    Echoes of the 1992 Tory Government here
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    Alistair said:

    I am sad to say that I think Cummings will have to go.

    Not sad for the man. He was a fool to break the rules in the way he did and think he was above reprimand for it. It was an arrogance that has always typified him from what I have seen.

    But I am sad for two specific reasons.

    One because it gives a win to the scum who have always hated him simply because he was effective and on the opposite side from them in arguments- and I include a fair few on here in that description.

    And two because he was undoubtedly right in the vast majority of things he did. He was a huge asset to both the Governance of this country and the Leave campaign.

    But it appears that success then breeds, or rather reinforces, that arrogance.

    No one should be above the law when people's lives are at stake, no one should get away with the crass hypocrisy he has displayed and no one should take the public for fools when trying to protect ones own career. He has done all these things and so should not survive.

    Whether he will or not is something I am incapable of predicting.

    He took on education with the brief to decentralise it.

    He ended with a vastly more centralised education system.

    He was completely wrong.
    Cummings and his cabal of nutjobs and weirdos are pretty much wrong on everything. The British public will get to know this fairly quickly hence why I hope he stays on.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102

    Scott_xP said:

    DougSeal said:

    There's a lot riding on that word "access". Did he have "access" to family. If the nearest family was that far away I would argue "no" and he should have, as the next resort, to the local authority.

    the nearest family are in London
    Who are they and their relationship
    What does that matter? Surely no 'parent would hand their child to the local authority when family were available'?
    If your parents are available they would be first call
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited May 2020
    Here are two questions for Cummings’ defenders:

    1) His claim is that the family left after his wife was showing symptoms. Is that, or is that not, in contradiction of the requirement that people with symptoms should isolate at their place of residence for seven days?

    2) He spent this time at a property in County Durham. The government regulations are, AIUI, that you must not spend the night away from your primary residence. Therefore, is the argument that his primary residence is in County Durham?

    As for the arguments over childcare, they are so utterly risible that they don’t deserve serious attention. Quite apart from the fact he clearly did not need any help with childcare, the worst imaginable way to get it is to drive all the way to the other end of the country.
This discussion has been closed.