He went for the first drive because he thought he might be incapacitated. He went for the second drive because he thought he might not be able to drive safely! He'll survive but this is too good for people to forget.
No. He went for the second drive because his Wife said he should do so. Don't know about you, but I would do the same if my Wife insisted.
I'd shoot him to encourager les autres, but I did like the phrase … "I told them it was nonsense but they printed it anyway." Should he be out on his own? Welcome to journalism UK.
Nice coincidence that this test drive to Barnard Castle was on his wife’s birthday. Really lucky that they could make a day out of it with such a good reason.
Agreed. Screwed up the politics of this but that's what it is now: politics.
People on a witch-hunt will still seek to get a political scalp. But a father wanting to look after his young family is reasonable.
Not when the advice published by his government do not allow the actions he took
You forget that Dom is a lot cleverer than you or me and therefore all those reasonable excuses are available to him whereas Joe Public in the same situation wouldn't know where to start.
The petrol stuff seems implausible. He drives a Range Rover, the fuel economy on those is dreadful.
Land Rover USA quotes combined MPG of 21, with a usable capacity of 17.7 gallons (US) which comes out to a range of about 370 miles by my reckoning. So I think it’s plausible.
He drove to a castle and drove back home right? All without stopping for petrol?
Do castle ward drives use more petrol than other kinds?
The "Led by Donkeys" demo and neighbours heckling last night have helped him in his point that his London house is not a particularly "safe" location.
More likely they inspired the authors of that part of the story. Literally every MP and journalist could use the same excuse.
How many MPs had demos and heckling outside their houses yesterday?
Well yesterday MPs had the good grace to not talk garbage about going for a drive to get an eye test, but an MP was literally murdered for doing her job four years ago.
Why do people find this do difficult to understand? Saying sorry would be an admittance that he's done something wrong. In his opinion, he has not. That's the whole point, if he accepted he had done something wrong he would have to resign.
Got to take a microlight for a test flight later this week. Was going to do it alone, but as a responsible father, I think I’ll put my son in the back.
The petrol stuff seems implausible. He drives a Range Rover, the fuel economy on those is dreadful.
Land Rover USA quotes combined MPG of 21, with a usable capacity of 17.7 gallons (US) which comes out to a range of about 370 miles by my reckoning. So I think it’s plausible.
He drove to a castle and drove back home right? All without stopping for petrol?
Do castle ward drives use more petrol than other kinds?
It’s about 30 miles. So add in 260 that brings us to 320. That’s feasible on one tank, even in a full Range Rover. But it would be cutting it quite fine.
Those who always thought Cummings was innocent still do.
Those who thinks Cummings was guilty still do.
Have I missed anyone?
I think he was unwise, made mistakes, but he will have some sympathy following this interview
The guardian have questions to answer
You're hilarious.
You may not like it but that is a fair comment
It really isn't. The Guardian reporting witnesses reporting him somewhere isn't as yet in question. Dom says he wasn't. But so what as he's telling an absolute load of cobblers and explicitly made statements that haven't transpired to be true.
This is a political crisis. He cannot exonerate himself by proving that charge 17 was false therefore the long list of things he has just confessed to having done that are directly contrary to the rules and some literally illegal don't matter
The guardian saying he went back twice was wrong and he can prove it by his gps records
Why do people find this do difficult to understand? Saying sorry would be an admittance that he's done something wrong. In his opinion, he has not. That's the whole point, if he accepted he had done something wrong he would have to resign.
Why do people find this do difficult to understand? Saying sorry would be an admittance that he's done something wrong. In his opinion, he has not. That's the whole point, if he accepted he had done something wrong he would have to resign.
Equally simply, people with the virus symptoms were told to stay at home, no exceptions.
Even if you think that Cummings hasn't done anything unreasonable, that he's in this position tells you that they are wrong to be fighting this.
Politics isn't an especially fair business. Governments have to take pragmatic views of situations. That this has been a massive media storm was completely predictable.
"I was just testing my eyesight by driving to Barnard’s Castle” is the going to be the new "We just went to Salisbury to see the lovely cathedral" at this rate.
New advertising campaign: "Barnard Castle? Should've gone to Specsavers."
Now that’s unfair. Barnard Castle is beautiful.
Maybe ending up in Consett by mistake would be the way of doing it.
I can't help but wonder if any of the journalists who got important aspects of this story completely wrong themselves have offered their own resignations?
No doubt their mistakes have led to feeding the public erroneous information that may well ultimately have put lives at risk.
The petrol stuff seems implausible. He drives a Range Rover, the fuel economy on those is dreadful.
Land Rover USA quotes combined MPG of 21, with a usable capacity of 17.7 gallons (US) which comes out to a range of about 370 miles by my reckoning. So I think it’s plausible.
He drove to a castle and drove back home right? All without stopping for petrol?
I think he claimed he left London on a full tank and stopped to fill up on the way back to London. I do hope he has the receipts to back it up.
On lockdown news I think just about everyone I know has gone out to lunch with each other.
It ended this weekend. And the man who ended it is on TV now.
Bollocks - it ended after the 'easing' announced by Boris two weeks ago. Our neighbours started having friends round on the Wednesday, by Friday the beaches were full. Lockdown ended a fortnight ago for many.
The petrol stuff seems implausible. He drives a Range Rover, the fuel economy on those is dreadful.
Land Rover USA quotes combined MPG of 21, with a usable capacity of 17.7 gallons (US) which comes out to a range of about 370 miles by my reckoning. So I think it’s plausible.
He drove to a castle and drove back home right? All without stopping for petrol?
I think he claimed he left London on a full tank and stopped to fill up on the way back to London. I do hope he has the receipts to back it up.
So he admitted to being out in public whilst still contagious then?
I can't help but wonder if any of the journalists who got important aspects of this story completely wrong themselves have offered their own resignations?
No doubt their mistakes have led to feeding the public erroneous information that may well ultimately have put lives at risk.
What mistakes? He’s admitted everything they said was basically correct!
The regulations were clarified, it appears on the day the Guardian started asking questions.
The BBC points out that the online guidance about self-isolation does include this (and it did include it at the time): "If you are living with children Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible. What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to follow this guidance."
Why do people find this do difficult to understand? Saying sorry would be an admittance that he's done something wrong. In his opinion, he has not. That's the whole point, if he accepted he had done something wrong he would have to resign.
Equally simply, people with the virus symptoms were told to stay at home, no exceptions.
I'm slightly reluctant to point out anything that would give Cummings succour, but that wasn't true.
If you look at the old versions of the advice on the NHS website (not gov.uk), you will find several exceptions quoted there. For example, they were advising that those with symptoms could still exercise once a day:
The petrol stuff seems implausible. He drives a Range Rover, the fuel economy on those is dreadful.
Land Rover USA quotes combined MPG of 21, with a usable capacity of 17.7 gallons (US) which comes out to a range of about 370 miles by my reckoning. So I think it’s plausible.
He drove to a castle and drove back home right? All without stopping for petrol?
Do castle ward drives use more petrol than other kinds?
He’d already done over 270+ miles since his last refuel
I can't help but wonder if any of the journalists who got important aspects of this story completely wrong themselves have offered their own resignations?
No doubt their mistakes have led to feeding the public erroneous information that may well ultimately have put lives at risk.
What mistakes? He’s admitted everything they said was basically correct!
We can start with the multiple trips back and forth from London to Durham that has featured heavily in recent reporting from the leftie hacks desperate to get their man.
"I don't know... I have to protect the Prime Minister's time".
How long does a text message take to read?
Plausible deniability. Not telling the PM gives Boris an out when the shit hits the fan. What Dom has done today is ensure Boris doesn't go down with him when the eventual resignation comes in a couple of days.
I disagree. Boris will be going with him.
He won't, Boris is the best Tory election winner since Thatcher
Even Thatcher had to resign eventually!
Top 3 Tory general election winners since WW2.
1. Thatcher. 2. Macmillan. 3. Boris.
When Macmillan went the Tories lost the 1964 general election and only won 1 majority for the next 16 years.
When Thatcher went the Tories narrowly won in 1992, lost by a landslide in 1997 and did not win another majority for 18 years after that.
In making this about him, in having such a press conference, he is shockingly blind to the wider implications. It’s like a subplot that puts into question the whole wider message of a story. In this instance, in trying to save himself at the expense of the government and his boss he exposes their weakness.
He is trashing the reasons as to why they were elected, trashing the message about the virus and public health and trashing the people that he is supposedly helping.
You watch or read a scene like that and it makes you think, why did I waste my time on what went before? Then you stop watching, or listening or (potentially) voting.
I can't help but wonder if any of the journalists who got important aspects of this story completely wrong themselves have offered their own resignations?
No doubt their mistakes have led to feeding the public erroneous information that may well ultimately have put lives at risk.
How the media collectively react now is going to be very interesting to watch.
IMO he came across as quite humble, even a little apologetic while not wanting to say he broke the rules.
He's an introvert who doesn't spend his days giving press conferences, and IMO (as a fellow introvert) he did okay. The extrovert alphas of the press pack may of course disagree.
I can't help but wonder if any of the journalists who got important aspects of this story completely wrong themselves have offered their own resignations?
No doubt their mistakes have led to feeding the public erroneous information that may well ultimately have put lives at risk.
What mistakes? He’s admitted everything they said was basically correct!
We can start with the multiple trips back and forth from London to Durham that has featured heavily in recent reporting from the leftie hacks desperate to get their man.
There was some suggestion that he hasbeen back since returning to London and he didn’t really refute it.
The key thing is that he’s admitted to going to Durham without seeking advice on whether he was permitted to, and driving to Barnard Castle with an excuse that is about as convincing as Nixon’s defence.
Genuinely a bit undecided how the public will respond to that. I think he's guilty as hell but I thought that anyway
Most of the public will decide whatever their favourite news channel, news site or newspaper tells them to think. So not much change was ever going to come from this. I think Cummings handled it pretty well, though the short trip to test his eyesight doesn't feel right. Funny how they ended up at such a destination on a test drive.
Sounds as if Dom stumbled his way through it and came out the other end bruised but still alive. The biggest loser in all of this is though is Boris. Much of the magic has faded.
Back at this time, we were being told that if you were driving somewhere, you could be stopped and asked if your trip was completely necessary. “I’m driving to a beauty spot 15 miles away to test my eyesight” was a reason that genuinely wouldn’t have occurred to me.
This "driving to test my eyesight" line is poorly judged. Remarkably bad and dangerous judgement at the time and almost as bad an idea to use it as an actual defense now.
Assuming he is telling the truth about not stopping on the way (and I hope every piece of CCTV on the A1(M) is being scoured as we speak) the fact is that he still took a huge risk with the safety of others, because he might have had to stop. It's like drink driving and saying it was ok because I didn't have an accident. And it was an unnecessary risk because he could have had someone look after his kid in London - one of his famous nieces could have even come down if required. And in the end they didn't need any help so by his own admission the whole journey was an unnecessary risk. And it's obvious he knew it was wrong because he and his wife have written an account of their suffering and neglected to mention it. Oh, and he said the public was "mad". He needs to go.
Back at this time, we were being told that if you were driving somewhere, you could be stopped and asked if your trip was completely necessary. “I’m driving to a beauty spot 15 miles away to test my eyesight” was a reason that genuinely wouldn’t have occurred to me.
Thirty.
Now having spent all my time slapping down people for saying Durham is 350m from London, i’m telling them Barnard Castle is further they think from Durham!
Back at this time, we were being told that if you were driving somewhere, you could be stopped and asked if your trip was completely necessary. “I’m driving to a beauty spot 15 miles away to test my eyesight” was a reason that genuinely wouldn’t have occurred to me.
Thirty.
Now having spent all my time slapping down people for saying Durham is 350m from London, i’m telling them Barnard Castle is further they think from Durham!
The media can carry on if they like trying to find other accounts from people who caught fleeting glimpses of the man during those two weeks. The PM won't be sacking him, and Cummings won't be resigning, and the public will get sick of this.
Genuinely a bit undecided how the public will respond to that. I think he's guilty as hell but I thought that anyway
Most of the public will decide whatever their favourite news channel, news site or newspaper tells them to think. So not much change was ever going to come from this.
Yep. Without even going so far as to suggest people just do what their media tells them, opinions on this were set days ago, they aren't changing now.
Back at this time, we were being told that if you were driving somewhere, you could be stopped and asked if your trip was completely necessary. “I’m driving to a beauty spot 15 miles away to test my eyesight” was a reason that genuinely wouldn’t have occurred to me.
Thirty.
Now having spent all my time slapping down people for saying Durham is 350m from London, i’m telling them Barnard Castle is further they think from Durham!
Well I was surprisingly impressed, but I also have this nagging feeling that I am also gullible, particularly as we know Boris tells porkies.
I want to cross examine just to convince myself I haven't been taken in
Explains why Boris avoided the Castle visit question yesterday as that would have opened up a can of worms that would have involved him giving the whole story which wouldn't have been appropriate in the time slot and needed to be first hand.
Back at this time, we were being told that if you were driving somewhere, you could be stopped and asked if your trip was completely necessary. “I’m driving to a beauty spot 15 miles away to test my eyesight” was a reason that genuinely wouldn’t have occurred to me.
That was certainly the really weak part of his account, and it will give the media a bit more fuel to carry on for awhile. Still the Guardian/Mirror won't be getting the outcome they wanted, and that's good enough for me.
Comments
But no.
That's the Daily Mail frontpage lined up then.
PROTECT THE NHS
SAVE LIVES
I thought the whole point of going to Durham was that his sister could help with the child!
Politics isn't an especially fair business. Governments have to take pragmatic views of situations. That this has been a massive media storm was completely predictable.
No doubt their mistakes have led to feeding the public erroneous information that may well ultimately have put lives at risk.
‘The situation does not apply to me.’
That loud noise you heard was Mirror, Mail and Guardian subs cheering very loudly.
There were clearly alternative actions that would have been less risky for his family and society as a whole and so he made the wrong choice.
I'm gobsmacked that he didn't explore the possibility of someone in London being on standby to help with his child.
"If you are living with children
Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.
What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to follow this guidance."
If you look at the old versions of the advice on the NHS website (not gov.uk), you will find several exceptions quoted there. For example, they were advising that those with symptoms could still exercise once a day:
The advice has since been tightened up, I think.
https://twitter.com/martinkettle/status/1264957297584988167?s=20
But for many the "human" issue wasn't the issue - its the government advisor breaching the government's guidelines which was the problem.
1. Thatcher.
2. Macmillan.
3. Boris.
When Macmillan went the Tories lost the 1964 general election and only won 1 majority for the next 16 years.
When Thatcher went the Tories narrowly won in 1992, lost by a landslide in 1997 and did not win another majority for 18 years after that.
The omens are not good for getting rid of Boris
He is trashing the reasons as to why they were elected, trashing the message about the virus and public health and trashing the people that he is supposedly helping.
You watch or read a scene like that and it makes you think, why did I waste my time on what went before? Then you stop watching, or listening or (potentially) voting.
IMO he came across as quite humble, even a little apologetic while not wanting to say he broke the rules.
He's an introvert who doesn't spend his days giving press conferences, and IMO (as a fellow introvert) he did okay. The extrovert alphas of the press pack may of course disagree.
Saying it like this is going to be the real killer
The key thing is that he’s admitted to going to Durham without seeking advice on whether he was permitted to, and driving to Barnard Castle with an excuse that is about as convincing as Nixon’s defence.
So for me on balance he is in the wrong. Don't expect him to be resigned though.
How though?
Remarkably bad and dangerous judgement at the time and almost as bad an idea to use it as an actual defense now.
Oh, and he said the public was "mad". He needs to go.
1. Barnard Castle eye test is transparently a lie. There are other holes, but that's the laugh line.
2. Says he couldn't arrange any childcare in London... but later admits he didn't even try.
3. For Johnson - he knew about it for weeks but never expressed any concern or interest at all until it was a media story.
4. No empathy at all for people who didn't even have the option of going to a cottage on the family farm, and indeed made immense sacrifices.
5. Feigned lack of appreciation this would impact future public health messages.
PP/Betfair 5/2 go, 1/4 stay
Ladbrokes 5/2 go, 2/7 stay
Now having spent all my time slapping down people for saying Durham is 350m from London, i’m telling them Barnard Castle is further they think from Durham!
I want to cross examine just to convince myself I haven't been taken in
Explains why Boris avoided the Castle visit question yesterday as that would have opened up a can of worms that would have involved him giving the whole story which wouldn't have been appropriate in the time slot and needed to be first hand.
PB Tories would be on this for days
Probably a grudging 7/10
At all.