I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules. If he has not broken any rules then by staying in his position he is setting a proper example to the public who should also be allowed to act within the rules. I suggest that an inquiry be held into whether Dominic Cummings has broken any laws or guidelines set down by the government. It appears to be that he has acted within the guidelines. People seem to be judging him by how they want people to behave rather than on what the actual advice and regulations state. This matters because the coronavirus situation is likely to go on for a very long time, so there need to be clear rules and people should be judged fairly on whether they have complied with the rules. Is Dominic Cummings being judged fairly and objectively? No.
On his own admission, he drove his wife from London to Durham when she was displaying the symptoms of Covid19.
The government guidelines on that are so clear I would have thought even someone as thick as Dominic Cummings could have understood them. If you have symptoms, do not leave your house.
He did. He admits he did. Therefore, he broke the guidelines. The question of whether he broke the law may be different and would require investigation, but there is no room for argument here. And therefore, he has to go. Any other solution wrecks lockdown and quarantine as concepts.
If you cannot see that, it is because you do not wish to see it.
Agreed - I just don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. The clear instruction was that if you have symptoms you isolate where you are with your family. He didn't he drove 250 miles.
However this is grown into something much bigger now and the political damage would be as great even if Cummings does try to justify what he did via some loophole in the small print.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
Farage openly appealed to and won SNP supporting Leave voters in Scotland at the European elections, hence the Brexit Party came second in Scotland.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
The SNP got 36.9% of the vote in 2017, they got 37.8% in the euros.
The idea that the 14% the Brexit Party got was made up of a large proportion of indy supporters is a bold claim. As opposed to the SCon vote collapsing to 11.6% from 28.6%
Goodness they're thick. You'd think one of them had heard of the Streisand effect.
It is entirely possible they had planned to remove these as the messaging evolves - but doing it now is beyond barmy. "Why was If one person breaks the rules we all suffer removed, Prime Minister?"
They have the old "stay home" logo on them so it makes sense they would be removed.
Why not just swap the logos? The If one person breaks the rules we all suffer is still valid - isn't it?
I wonder if all these Tory MPs think that all they have to do is express their view that Cummings needs to go. I think we’re past that point and Boris is fully committed to Dom; there’s no turning back now.
I think Cummings only leaves Downing Street when Johnson does.
January 2021 is my guess, any odds for that anywhere?
The white heat of the anger will have gone to red or below within a week, in a fortnight it'll no longer lead the media other than the Guardian / Mirror, in a month the average person will move on to new topics - do you remember the news a month ago today (be honest)? - in 6 months the economic recovery from coronavirus will crowd out all other news as we struggle to recover from depression, in 4 years the general election will be fought based on what's actually happening then.
Two years from now Scott and ICHB will still be re-tweeting 24/7 about it though
No, you're simply wrong. I know a lot of members who have or are considering resigning over this. If the party membership can't accept it then the voters definitely can't. This is going to run and run. If Boris is still PM in 2024 I could see a Blair style victory for Starmer, Boris has lot his one reason to vote for him - he is a posho everyman who calls it and says it like it is.
Imagine for a minute the party roles were reversed and this was Blair holding onto Ali Campbell after he'd done exactly what Dom has done with Boris as LOTO. He'd tell it how it is and say it can't be one rule from us and another for them. Boris would place himself in with the plebs, he's done it successfully for his whole political career. Until now. If Boris can no longer see what it means to be a pleb and he's become so isolated from ordinary people then he's of no use as a leader because he won't win the next election.
Tbh, the same goes for Dom as well. He's always cast himself into the role as defender of the downtrodden, but now he's doing the treading and damaging those people he claims to represent (and has done well for a long time).
If you think this blows over without anygthig changing then you're even denser than you appear.
Is this the PR stance I would have chosen in an ideal world? Nope. Do I have a sense of perspective that people are not going to smoulder about this for years? Yes. I've also never been a party member, for all the relevance that has.
Think back to all the major scandals that burned hot and ultimately didn't change anything - except it's hard to do that because one has naturally forgotten most of them. A million people marched against Blair and he just shrugged it off. Are a million people going to march against Cummings?
Maybe I'm weird, but when it comes to my political and social attitudes I simply don't bend in the wind with a single news event, however good or bad. And let's face it, what Cummings did merits what, a £30 fine, if that? And suddenly we're in a nuclear war over it? No thanks.
I'm fairly certain we all remember the headlines of a month ago. An issue that isn't "going away" and one that will damage the party for a generation.
"Care Home Coronavirus Deaths Top 4,000"
Is anyone talking about care homes today? No, they're all too busy frothing about a single SpaD to give a damn. And in a month they'll be frothing about something else. That's the nature of the news cycle and the human attention span.
Nope, any sensible journalist will be keeping the care home story prepared, ready for when this story has ran it's course.
If you think this is hiding the care home story you are in for a hell of a surprise.
I pointed yesterday to the File on 4 report on it. Quite devastating. (I think only @Richard_Tyndall noticed.) The rest of the media will catch up.
I'm sure they will - but there is only so much paper to fill every day.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
Simple solution for people who value loyalty above all else. Get a dog.
Nah, they'd still call me a Nazi - Hitler had a dog, you see...
Try being a vegetarian.
A vegetarian?! Jesus Christ, why don't you just invade Poland already and get it over with?
Sky gets spain situation wrong again. Most of the country has had bar terraces open for two weeks now 50% capacity 2m distancing, table service only. Today half the country goes to phase two where restaurants and bars can open indoors with the above conditions. More retail outlets will be open commercial centers etc at 40% capacity etc etc just annoying Sky over simplify it. If you break the rules you get fined the one thing they are losing control of is inter province travel which is banned as more and more second homers turn up from Madrid and Murcia which is a concern. We’re still in phase 1 Valencia but can get a meal and drink out if I want.
At least you have the weather for outdoor restaurants and bars, it must make it easier to loosen the regs. Although we've had good weather throughout this so far we know it won't last. Pleased you seem to be up and about again, we should be at a villa in Xabia right now instead of stuck in our garden, such is life!
Walking with a stick now, back to oncologist Wednesday to have another go with the chemo, the limited freedoms make it so much easier to bear I can’t imagine being totally left to my own thoughts 24*7. Hope to be out of phase 1 next week. Looks like spain are going to open borders 1/7 with no quarantine but think it will be selective as to where from.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
Farage openly appealed to and won SNP supporting Leave voters in Scotland at the European elections, hence the Brexit Party came second in Scotland.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
What went wrong at the GE?
Brexit Party
votes: 13,243 % of total: 0.5
Most Brexit Party voters went Tory or back to the SNP.
The SNP increase their vote haul by 8.8% points in the Euros, the SCons lost 5.6 % points. Which SNP voters were doing all this changing?
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
Farage openly appealed to and won SNP supporting Leave voters in Scotland at the European elections, hence the Brexit Party came second in Scotland.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
What went wrong at the GE?
Brexit Party
votes: 13,243 % of total: 0.5
Most Brexit Party voters went Tory or back to the SNP.
The SNP increase their vote haul by 8.8% points in the Euros, the SCons lost 5.6 % points. Which SNP voters were doing all this changing?
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
If it's so important for kids to be with both their parents, why is it Tory policy that foreign born parents of British children who don't earn enough money have to watch their kids grow up via the internet? They've told us that Skype is adequate for those parents, why was it not good enough for Mary Wakefield? After all, we're only talking a couple of weeks max, not a whole lifetime of separation.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
Farage openly appealed to and won SNP supporting Leave voters in Scotland at the European elections, hence the Brexit Party came second in Scotland.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
What went wrong at the GE?
Brexit Party
votes: 13,243 % of total: 0.5
Most Brexit Party voters went Tory or back to the SNP.
The SNP increase their vote haul by 8.8% points in the Euros, the SCons lost 5.6 % points. Which SNP voters were doing all this changing?
Over a third of SNP voters, 36%, voted to Leave the EU in 2016.
Many SNP GE and Holyrood voters also voted UKIP in the 2014 European elections
Goodness they're thick. You'd think one of them had heard of the Streisand effect.
It is entirely possible they had planned to remove these as the messaging evolves - but doing it now is beyond barmy. "Why was If one person breaks the rules we all suffer removed, Prime Minister?"
They have the old "stay home" logo on them so it makes sense they would be removed.
I wonder if all these Tory MPs think that all they have to do is express their view that Cummings needs to go. I think we’re past that point and Boris is fully committed to Dom; there’s no turning back now.
I think Cummings only leaves Downing Street when Johnson does.
January 2021 is my guess, any odds for that anywhere?
Thank you very much, I will have a dabble on both of those
No worries. Note that they pay out based on the leadership of the Conservative party, rather than holding the office of PM - there was a load of confusion over the Theresa May exit date markets, when she was judged to have left at the conclusion of the leadership campaign, rather than on the date she announced her resignation as leader.
If you assume Johnson resigns in January, you might want a covering bet on Q2 2021 - in case the leadership election gets dragged out past the end of March.
Goodness they're thick. You'd think one of them had heard of the Streisand effect.
It is entirely possible they had planned to remove these as the messaging evolves - but doing it now is beyond barmy. "Why was If one person breaks the rules we all suffer removed, Prime Minister?"
They have the old "stay home" logo on them so it makes sense they would be removed.
Why not just swap the logos? The If one person breaks the rules we all suffer is still valid - isn't it?
Whilst I would love to ascribe nefarious stupidity to everything this government does this looks like a perfectly explainable action, perhaps even a scheduled deletion from a week ago, as messaging is tweaked approaching lifting lockdown.
As you say, the optics now are horrific for them but it doesn't have to have been a deliberate act.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
He didn't want to leave her in London in case Johnson popped round.
Another new experience - my non-political friends and family are finding out whether they have a Tory MP and emailing them their own personal issues with this, sacrifices they have made due to the lockdown. One missed his grandmother's funeral just last week because of the limit on attendance, his mum was absolutely crushed that none of their kids could say goodbye to their nan because she's not been able to have visitors in hospital.
This is the kind of stuff that is absolutely destroying the PM's reputation. Lots of personal stories out there and people feeling like mugs and being taken advantage of. The worst one for me is the one who hasn't held his newborn daughter because he's doing essential work in keeping the grid up and running. He's being asked to make a huge sacrifice to keep the electricity supply running but at the same time Dom can't live without a trip to some castle in Durham.
It's easy to dismiss these people as having grievances or whatever, but loads of them just voted for Boris and at least half voted to leave. These are people who take part in the political process once every 5 years when an election rolls around, they are the voters that handed Boris his thumping victory.
On reflection last night's press conference was a terrible mistake for Johnson personally.
Before that point, the story was about a government advisor. As is typical with similar stories, the government tries to defend it (e.g. sending a junior minister on TV with it very clear he knows he's pulled the short straw) and then has to hope it goes away or else accept a resignation. In this case, the latter would have been required. At no point did Johnson need to make the story about him.
Instead he has become the face of the story, of the 'one rule for us, one rule for you' defence.
SAGE experts and police claim lockdown is 'dead in the water' after Boris Johnson stakes everything on defending Dominic Cummings and 16 Tory MPs call for him to be sacked
Top rated comment:
I am a Tory voter. I voted for Brexit. What is going on here with Boris and Cummings is an absolute disgrace. Do as I say not as I do. What mentality to have. Any good work, and there has not been much through this pandemic has been undone in a week. Cummings must go, Boris wake up or you won't be far behind.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
What would a PB thread be without HYUFD suggesting some totally ludicrous voter movements in Scotland.
Much worse without as I'm sure you would all agree.
Not ludicrous, any SNP gains in 2019 from the 2014 European elections came from Scottish Labour.
In 2019 plenty of SNP GE voters voted Brexit Party eg the SNP got 37% in the European elections last year but 45% at the general election while the Brexit Party was second in Scotland at the European elections
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
Isn't that the point, Philip. The government have been asking us to make these kinds of sacrifices but when the main advisor to the PM refuses to do so it's not a problem. Why should we now continue to make those sacrifices of not seeing friends and family?
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
If it's so important for kids to be with both their parents, why is it Tory policy that foreign born parents of British children who don't earn enough money have to watch their kids grow up via the internet? They've told us that Skype is adequate for those parents, why was it not good enough for Mary Wakefield? After all, we're only talking a couple of weeks max, not a whole lifetime of separation.
They don't have to. They just can't migrate to this country, is there a reason why the child can't live in the other parents country with that parent.
But I don't agree with that policy so won't defend it.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
And that is how you end up charged with conspiracy...
Indeed.
BluestBlue’s post is an exposition of the criminal mind.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
On the contrary, surely. The police are now in a potentially sticky position and need to make sure their side of matters is completely straight. And it's the duty of the gent in question, the PCC (edit), to make sure they are on the right rails.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
The conviction would show that he is completely unsuitable to be advising the PM.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Don't also forget that the PCC is a political position, in this case a former union rep appointed by the Labour council in Durham.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
The conviction would show that he is completely unsuitable to be advising the PM.
Unless the elected PM decides otherwise, of course. Minor fines do not require dismissal from office.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Are they doing anything different?
They spoke to him (or someone) who said "Didn't do it, Guv"
Now additional evidence has come to light they are investigating further.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Don't also forget that the PCC is a political position, in this case a former union rep appointed by the Labour council in Durham.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
And that is how you end up charged with conspiracy...
Indeed.
BluestBlue’s post is an exposition of the criminal mind.
I actually thought of the Freemasons, or at least their reputation in British public life, fairly or otherwise, when I read Mr Blue's post originally. The point about loyalty trumping all else, and reciprocal favours.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Good post. Thanks for that.
Technically, if you settle the initial offence by paying the fixed penalty fine, is it still a criminal offence?
Secondly, in your view are Mr C and Mrs C equally culpable? Does it make a difference that 1) Mrs C was the covid-positive party and 2) Mr C was the driver (presumably)?
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
Isn't that the point, Philip. The government have been asking us to make these kinds of sacrifices but when the main advisor to the PM refuses to do so it's not a problem. Why should we now continue to make those sacrifices of not seeing friends and family?
The government said in early April via the DCMO that if you had childcare issues then obviously that's an exceptional scenario and you need to do what's right for the children.
If this is about childcare then I couldn't care less since everyone could do the same thing.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
I don't see a situation that is normal though. That is the entire point.
"I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal. "
@Philip_Thompson That's the point, it isn't "normal" yet loads of people have made sacrifice after sacrifice. Now Johnson has told them it was because they didn't love their nan/kid/partner enough.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
But this isn't about Cummings any more.
It's about Johnson's judgement and how he valued an aide over Public Health - damaging one of the few things the government has done reasonably well (in execution, if not timing) in this pandemic.
Johnson likes to be the centre of attention - well, its now all about him.
As Mr Meeks pointed out upthread this could have been handled so much better - a few weeks ago, Johnson could have announced what Cummings had done, given him a severe telling off, but because of the emergency declined the proffered resignation, and I suspect most would have gone "Fair enough, we all make mistakes and he was trying to do his best for his kiddie". Instead, rather than have Cummings appear in the wrong he's trashed one of the few bits of pandemic response that actually worked and poisoned the Tory well to boot.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
If it's so important for kids to be with both their parents, why is it Tory policy that foreign born parents of British children who don't earn enough money have to watch their kids grow up via the internet? They've told us that Skype is adequate for those parents, why was it not good enough for Mary Wakefield? After all, we're only talking a couple of weeks max, not a whole lifetime of separation.
They don't have to. They just can't migrate to this country, is there a reason why the child can't live in the other parents country with that parent.
But I don't agree with that policy so won't defend it.
That relies on the other country having a more humane immigration policy than we do and allowing the family to be together. Glad you don't support the policy, it really is indefensible and odd from a party that is supposed to believe in family values.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
And that is how you end up charged with conspiracy...
Indeed.
BluestBlue’s post is an exposition of the criminal mind.
I actually thought of the Freemasons, or at least their reputation in British public life, fairly or otherwise, when I read Mr Blue's post originally. The point about loyalty trumping all else, and reciprocal favours.
As did I, an organization which I believe is in rapid decline And in many situations the better for it.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Are they doing anything different?
They spoke to him (or someone) who said "Didn't do it, Guv"
Now additional evidence has come to light they are investigating further.
Are they? Your link is to an unelected PCC asking the Chief Constable to look at the case again.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Don't also forget that the PCC is a political position, in this case a former union rep appointed by the Labour council in Durham.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
Not sure what the cost of a parking ticket is round your way is but a mags court can fine up to £5,000. He’d also get a criminal record, and if he were not part of the political elite, a dismissal - but it’s one law for him and one for us of course.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
If Boris even considers allowing indyref2 next year in breach of the Tory manifesto let alone backs Yes he will be ousted as Tory leader in less than 5 minutes.
Some things really are unforgiveable
Since when did Tories care about manifesto commitments?
- “We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty.“
The second part of that sentence implies that if the majority of people in Scotland change their minds, the Conservatives might too.
Whatever, finessing manifestos is Chapter One in How to Govern for Dummies.
Another new experience - my non-political friends and family are finding out whether they have a Tory MP and emailing them their own personal issues with this, sacrifices they have made due to the lockdown. One missed his grandmother's funeral just last week because of the limit on attendance, his mum was absolutely crushed that none of their kids could say goodbye to their nan because she's not been able to have visitors in hospital.
This is the kind of stuff that is absolutely destroying the PM's reputation. Lots of personal stories out there and people feeling like mugs and being taken advantage of. The worst one for me is the one who hasn't held his newborn daughter because he's doing essential work in keeping the grid up and running. He's being asked to make a huge sacrifice to keep the electricity supply running but at the same time Dom can't live without a trip to some castle in Durham.
It's easy to dismiss these people as having grievances or whatever, but loads of them just voted for Boris and at least half voted to leave. These are people who take part in the political process once every 5 years when an election rolls around, they are the voters that handed Boris his thumping victory.
Irrespective of our political differences, you have massively increased my appreciation for you as an even handed commentator in the last few months.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Don't also forget that the PCC is a political position, in this case a former union rep appointed by the Labour council in Durham.
Not elected? I thought they were now
He was appointed to temporarily hold the position, following the death in office of the elected PCC.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Good post. Thanks for that.
Technically, if you settle the initial offence by paying the fixed penalty fine, is it still a criminal offence?
Secondly, in your view are Mr C and Mrs C equally culpable? Does it make a difference that 1) Mrs C was the covid-positive party and 2) Mr C was the driver (presumably)?
A fixed penalty is a way of avoiding prosecution and thus a criminal charge and record. So, while technically it is still a criminal offence, you are accepting a civil outcome as opposed to a criminal one.
If both left their house without reasonable excuse they are both culpable - unless Mrs C can prove she was forced into the car I suppose.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
The conviction would show that he is completely unsuitable to be advising the PM.
Unless the elected PM decides otherwise, of course. Minor fines do not require dismissal from office.
Commit a criminal offence (especially one that reflects your personal proprietary) and personally, you will be out the door for Gross Misconduct immediately.
I`m throwing a few "likes" round this morning. A very interesting, sober discussion, with some great, considered points coming out. Far better than yesterday IMO.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
In the situation as presented I'd expect to stay home with my wife and that family would travel to me to collect my child if I needed their help to look after my child.
I've been in precisely that situation and it didn't occur to any of us that sick, or soon to be sick, people would travel. I would think that would be even more true in a pandemic.
I am not clear that Cummings has in fact broken any rules.
I keep asking this. Even if people swallow the bizarre argument that the child was in some kind of imminent danger of harm and had to be taken to Durham, WHAT CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION WAS THERE FOR CUMMINGS'S SYMPTOMATIC WIFE TO BE DRIVEN TO THE OTHER END OF THE COUNTRY TOO?
Has Cummings broken any rules. This question has to be broken down into parts:[snip]
Sorry, but my question is extremely simple.
I'm taking about the regulations governing leaving people's place of residence. I'm asking what was the reasonable excuse for Cummings's wife to travel halfway across the country.
The excuse for Cummings is alleged to be that his child was at risk of harm in certain circumstances (which at that time were almost entirely hypothetical), so he had to take the child to Durham.
But even if that were true, what was the excuse for his wife travelling? Particularly as she was symptomatic at the time.
A very simple question.
I`ve been wondering that too. It may also be worth pondering why, in the scenario of a spouse being positive and a spouse negative, with them both travelling, that the negative spouse is the one getting all the flack when it is the positive spouse who has broken quarantine. Has this been pondered I wonder?
They both broke quarantine. If a member of your household has the symptoms of the virus you are supposed to isolate for 14 days. Irrespective of whether or not you show any symptoms. This is entirely separate from the basic lockdown rules and is far more serious.
I agree it's more serious.
However, some people are trying to take the very narrow line that the quarantine guidance didn't have the force of law. But no legal justification has been put forward for the wife's travelling.
If travelling for the child is legal then that applies to the parents.
The justification for Cummings travelling is supposed to be that the child was at risk of harm, so the child had to be taken to Durham. (Codswallop though that is.)
The question is - given that Cummings was taking the child to Durham, what is the justification for his wife travelling to Durham.
She was taking the child to Durham too. She doesn't cease to be a mother just because Dom is a father.
Wouldn't you take the kid, leave the wife at home, deliver kid with minimum of contact and return home to look after wife?
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
No. I wouldn't abandon my sick wife.
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
Isn't that the point, Philip. The government have been asking us to make these kinds of sacrifices but when the main advisor to the PM refuses to do so it's not a problem. Why should we now continue to make those sacrifices of not seeing friends and family?
The government said in early April via the DCMO that if you had childcare issues then obviously that's an exceptional scenario and you need to do what's right for the children.
If this is about childcare then I couldn't care less since everyone could do the same thing.
And making a trip to some Durham castle? Driving 300 miles? Not asking your brother in law in London to help out? Not asking friends to deliver food? My best mate and his wife had the virus at the same time, they looked after their 2 year old daughter and did home delivery for food.
They made that sacrifice, why should Dom be exempted from that? Don't go back to these spurious changes to whatever guidelines, the rules as laid out by the government was to not leave house for any reason for people who are symptomatic.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
A minor and highly contingent virtue. Tellingly it was the excuse the scumbags who covered up Lucan's disappearance pleaded. And much prized by the Hitler youth.
Valuing personal loyalty now aligns you with the Hitler Youth? Are you sure you've thought this one through all the way?
Loyalty is a good quality but it ceases to be when it blinds you to the wrongdoing and evil of the person you are being loyal to.
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
Not sure what the cost of a parking ticket is round your way is but a mags court can fine up to £5,000. He’d also get a criminal record, and if he were not part of the political elite, a dismissal - but it’s one law for him and one for us of course.
Really? £5000 for a first offence, when he was afraid for his child? Only if Scott_xP happens to be the magistrate. As for the 'criminal record', no one who hasn't already convicted him in the court of public opinion is going to change their mind whether he gets a fine or not.
Not a good look in my opinion. Politicians and advisors have a higher standard to maintain and its right they should be under more pressure to leave a job that is related to the governance of the issue itself.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
Don't also forget that the PCC is a political position, in this case a former union rep appointed by the Labour council in Durham.
Not elected? I thought they were now
He was appointed to temporarily hold the position, following the death in office of the elected PCC.
He's only unelected because it wasn't worth holding an election when there was going to be on 9 months later after the previous PCC died.
And it really won't matter as if Steven White wants the job he is going to be re-elected. County Durham likes sane, former police officers running their police force.
If Dominic Cummings acted responsibly, legally and with integrity as Boris claims, why did his wife give the impression in her Spectator article that she was in London? Why did the family return home to Islington at 3 in the morning, according to a neighbour? These are not the actions of someone with nothing to hide. Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the most powerful men in the country with a wife who is a senior political journalist, hasn't got a network of friends who can step in in an emergency.
You're surprised that DC doesn't have friends? As opposed to people he knows!
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go. If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
He’s not even a law maker. MPs make laws. He’s just an adviser. Which makes this whole thing all the more weird. As I say above I’ve had plenty of client fire people for causing them a quantum level of the bad publicity this is causing the PM.
Some perspective on child safeguarding (which I understand is a legal term which applies to children vulnerable to abuse - not "we might not be able to make him his favourite pudding") - apols for the #tag....
Loyalty is the absolute backbone of human relationships. There's literally nothing I value more highly than it in my personal life, and nothing I despise more than disloyalty, so maybe that's why my gut reaction to this is so strong, quite apart from my obvious partisanship.
If someone does good to you, you must do good to them. End of discussion.
In government the first loyalty should be to the rule of law. It's what differentiates democratic rule from the Mafia. You need to reflect on your values.
The rule of law? He hasn't been convicted of a crime, and if he were the penalty for it would be a small fine.
So exactly like the Mafia then
The rule of law demands that the allegations against him be investigated. Thankfully it appears the police are doing that. However Mr Johnson appears to think that accepting the word of the accused that he has done nothing wrong is enough to shut the matter up.
Remember there is a witness to his second trip. That witness may be lying or be discredited. But witness evidence is evidence and that needs to be investigated. Which hopefully will be sorted by the Durham Constabulary
Well, you're the lawyer - let's suppose he were found guilty. What kind of penalties could he expect to receive?
And for extra bonus points - if he were your client, how easy would it be to get him off?
For the initial offence a fine. Then, like any other employee, he has to deal with his employer. He’d probably be fired before the fine.
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Thanks for the detailed answer. So in the worst case Cummings will have to pay the cost of a parking ticket for the crime of the century? I think he can live with that.
Not sure what the cost of a parking ticket is round your way is but a mags court can fine up to £5,000. He’d also get a criminal record, and if he were not part of the political elite, a dismissal - but it’s one law for him and one for us of course.
Really? £5000 for a first offence, when he was afraid for his child? Only if Scott_xP happens to be the magistrate. As for the 'criminal record', no one who hasn't already convicted him in the court of public opinion is going to change their mind whether he gets a fine or not.
£5,000 is the max so definitely unlikely for a first offence, unless during the proceedings it emerged there were some aggravating circumstances, such as telling a whole bunch of implausible lies to try and wriggle off the charge.
Sky gets spain situation wrong again. Most of the country has had bar terraces open for two weeks now 50% capacity 2m distancing, table service only. Today half the country goes to phase two where restaurants and bars can open indoors with the above conditions. More retail outlets will be open commercial centers etc at 40% capacity etc etc just annoying Sky over simplify it. If you break the rules you get fined the one thing they are losing control of is inter province travel which is banned as more and more second homers turn up from Madrid and Murcia which is a concern. We’re still in phase 1 Valencia but can get a meal and drink out if I want.
At least you have the weather for outdoor restaurants and bars, it must make it easier to loosen the regs. Although we've had good weather throughout this so far we know it won't last. Pleased you seem to be up and about again, we should be at a villa in Xabia right now instead of stuck in our garden, such is life!
Walking with a stick now, back to oncologist Wednesday to have another go with the chemo, the limited freedoms make it so much easier to bear I can’t imagine being totally left to my own thoughts 24*7. Hope to be out of phase 1 next week. Looks like spain are going to open borders 1/7 with no quarantine but think it will be selective as to where from.
Best wishes for the chemo; mine made walking difficult, because `I developed huge blisters on my feet.
Johnson is a dead duck, and he knows it. He’s got max 24 months.
Johnson needs something big to save his Churchillian self-image. Brexit insufficient as it will be accepted to be idiocy by future generations.
What other “biggies” remain for a dead duck PM? War within next year seems profoundly unlikely. Answer: regain English independence.
SNP+SGP win Scottish GE next year and request new Edinburgh Agreement. Johnson negotiates one with them.
During referendum run-up, after flirting with No, Johnson eventually plumps for Yes (cf run-up to Brexit referendum).
Johnson and Yes win.
Johnson thinks he is the new Churchill (or Athelstan or King Billy or whoever).
England (still clinging on to Wales) and Scotland join UN.
NI finally f.... off, to everyone’s immense relief (except Dublin’s).
As soon as one of the major Westminster parties changes their position on the union, it will be unsustainable.
In order of likelihood:
1. Con 2. Labour 3. Lib Dems
?
Weirdly afaIcr The Brexit Party had the most pragmatic view of the Union at the last GE, ie vote for us now and we can look at the indy issue later on. This doesn't really matter because they're an irrelevance and it was almost certainly a load of auld bollocks anyway, but still, funny old world.
Farage openly appealed to and won SNP supporting Leave voters in Scotland at the European elections, hence the Brexit Party came second in Scotland.
The Brexit Party position is to be truly independent Scotland must stay out of the EU just like England and Wales
The SNP got 36.9% of the vote in 2017, they got 37.8% in the euros.
The idea that the 14% the Brexit Party got was made up of a large proportion of indy supporters is a bold claim. As opposed to the SCon vote collapsing to 11.6% from 28.6%
Comments
However this is grown into something much bigger now and the political damage would be as great even if Cummings does try to justify what he did via some loophole in the small print.
The idea that the 14% the Brexit Party got was made up of a large proportion of indy supporters is a bold claim. As opposed to the SCon vote collapsing to 11.6% from 28.6%
Remain 4/7
Leave 5/4
I’m an employment lawyer and advise a lot of clients who wish to fire/have been fired from jobs for the reason of being suspected of committing a criminal offence. Even if they are only charged, or even simply investigated, it is well established that a fair dismissal can be effected by an employer prior to conviction simply to protect the employer’s reputation - this is “some other substantial reason” under the unfair dismissal law - see, for example, the EAT’s decision in Lafferty v Nuffield Health last year. In Cummings’ case, however, he’s been in this job far less than two years, indeed less than one, so he does not have the normal statutory unfair dismissal rights under the ERA 1996. And the burden of proof in employment cases is lower than in criminal in any event. So any other employer could and probably would have fired him by now with little or no fear of legal comeback. He could plead he’d been discriminated against under the Equality Act, or blew the whistle on BoJo’s wrongdoing to manufacture a case I suppose - but it’s hardly convincing.
If I were asked to defend him in a criminal charge, I would immediately instruct counsel, such as George Perez QC, to advise. He is on the record as saying it would be hard to get Cummings off in these circumstances. So I would advise, based on such counsel’s opinion, to plead guilty and hope for a conditional discharge.
Hope that helps. As you know I am very happy that BoJo has not fired Cummings even though he would be fully entitled to.
Wouldn't that be the normal thing to do?
I always thought Johnson, much as I despise him, had some political cunning, but I think the mask has slipped for a lot of people this week.
Maybe he is what he always was: a privileged chancer who always got away with treating everyone with contempt thinking he always will.
Many SNP GE and Holyrood voters also voted UKIP in the 2014 European elections
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14950013.36-of-snp-and-labour-supporters-backed-brexit-finds-survey/
I don't think he will, but he could.
If you assume Johnson resigns in January, you might want a covering bet on Q2 2021 - in case the leadership election gets dragged out past the end of March.
As you say, the optics now are horrific for them but it doesn't have to have been a deliberate act.
If he acted illegally he should be charged and if convicted should go.
If he acted legally that should be the end of story.
Law makers can't be law breakers.
Much worse without as I'm sure you would all agree.
This is the kind of stuff that is absolutely destroying the PM's reputation. Lots of personal stories out there and people feeling like mugs and being taken advantage of. The worst one for me is the one who hasn't held his newborn daughter because he's doing essential work in keeping the grid up and running. He's being asked to make a huge sacrifice to keep the electricity supply running but at the same time Dom can't live without a trip to some castle in Durham.
It's easy to dismiss these people as having grievances or whatever, but loads of them just voted for Boris and at least half voted to leave. These are people who take part in the political process once every 5 years when an election rolls around, they are the voters that handed Boris his thumping victory.
Before that point, the story was about a government advisor. As is typical with similar stories, the government tries to defend it (e.g. sending a junior minister on TV with it very clear he knows he's pulled the short straw) and then has to hope it goes away or else accept a resignation. In this case, the latter would have been required. At no point did Johnson need to make the story about him.
Instead he has become the face of the story, of the 'one rule for us, one rule for you' defence.
It is strangely comforting..
This populism thing is really work out isn't it fuckweasel?
SAGE experts and police claim lockdown is 'dead in the water' after Boris Johnson stakes everything on defending Dominic Cummings and 16 Tory MPs call for him to be sacked
Top rated comment:
I am a Tory voter. I voted for Brexit. What is going on here with Boris and Cummings is an absolute disgrace. Do as I say not as I do. What mentality to have. Any good work, and there has not been much through this pandemic has been undone in a week. Cummings must go, Boris wake up or you won't be far behind.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8354023/Government-science-adviser-savages-Boris-Johnson-defence-Dominic-Cummings.html
If I was worried about childcare for my young children but my brother or sister in law had somewhere I could safely reside while they could offer help then I'd be tempted to drive us there. I wouldn't be tempted to abandon my sick wife and go without her.
I can't speak for others but I don't see any situation where abandoning someone you love who is sick for two weeks is normal.
Frankly, their total absence is nothing short of pathetic.
In 2019 plenty of SNP GE voters voted Brexit Party eg the SNP got 37% in the European elections last year but 45% at the general election while the Brexit Party was second in Scotland at the European elections
Now you are just taking the piss!
Not 2 percentage points, two percent.
But I don't agree with that policy so won't defend it.
However, the police should not do anything differently because it’s Dominic Cummings. The law applies to everyone equally.
What does he know that others don't - or what has he done that others might criticise?
BluestBlue’s post is an exposition of the criminal mind.
They spoke to him (or someone) who said "Didn't do it, Guv"
Now additional evidence has come to light they are investigating further.
Technically, if you settle the initial offence by paying the fixed penalty fine, is it still a criminal offence?
Secondly, in your view are Mr C and Mrs C equally culpable? Does it make a difference that 1) Mrs C was the covid-positive party and 2) Mr C was the driver (presumably)?
If this is about childcare then I couldn't care less since everyone could do the same thing.
@Philip_Thompson That's the point, it isn't "normal" yet loads of people have made sacrifice after sacrifice. Now Johnson has told them it was because they didn't love their nan/kid/partner enough.
It's about Johnson's judgement and how he valued an aide over Public Health - damaging one of the few things the government has done reasonably well (in execution, if not timing) in this pandemic.
Johnson likes to be the centre of attention - well, its now all about him.
As Mr Meeks pointed out upthread this could have been handled so much better - a few weeks ago, Johnson could have announced what Cummings had done, given him a severe telling off, but because of the emergency declined the proffered resignation, and I suspect most would have gone "Fair enough, we all make mistakes and he was trying to do his best for his kiddie". Instead, rather than have Cummings appear in the wrong he's trashed one of the few bits of pandemic response that actually worked and poisoned the Tory well to boot.
- “We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty.“
The second part of that sentence implies that if the majority of people in Scotland change their minds, the Conservatives might too.
Whatever, finessing manifestos is Chapter One in How to Govern for Dummies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Police_and_Crime_Commissioner
If both left their house without reasonable excuse they are both culpable - unless Mrs C can prove she was forced into the car I suppose.
The first brick to go could be a junior minister who's more worried about their chances of re-election than their promotion prospects.
I've been in precisely that situation and it didn't occur to any of us that sick, or soon to be sick, people would travel. I would think that would be even more true in a pandemic.
They made that sacrifice, why should Dom be exempted from that? Don't go back to these spurious changes to whatever guidelines, the rules as laid out by the government was to not leave house for any reason for people who are symptomatic.
And it really won't matter as if Steven White wants the job he is going to be re-elected. County Durham likes sane, former police officers running their police force.
Anyway doesn't his sister in law live nearby?
https://twitter.com/_JD_Black/status/1264848071776710658?s=20
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1264870704509526016?s=20
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1264859075822542848