Excuse isn't a negative word in the law. It has meaning. If he meets it for the law he should follow the law and do the right thing as he sees it. As should anyone.
That's incorrect legally.
"Reasonable excuse" is an objective rather than subjective test, so his view of the right thing to do isn't really relevant.
An analogy is theft - there has to be dishonesty in the eyes of reasonable people. Whether the thief considered himself dishonest isn't relevant*.
* Actually it was until 2017 on theft but no longer. Specifically on "reasonable excuse" this was a bit up in the air until 2018, but again is now settled.
It's possible this is the truth and he's stubbornly refused (until now) to reveal it on the basis that he couldn't see why he should - and that he holds the media in contempt. It's also possible it's a carefully contrived story to backfit what he did that he's worked on over the past 48 hours.
Personally, I think it's about 50:50 and probably the former is more likely than the latter. But he should still step down.
Almost everyone else in the same position wouldn't have travelled and been bollocked by the rozzers if they did.
Just as a question: @Philip_Thompson - as the father of a young lad yourself, would you, if there was reason to suspect your eyesight might be impaired, test it by going for a 30-mile drive with your son in the car? Rather than, say, wait a few more days and check in over Zoom.
I really wouldn’t, myself, but I’m wondering if I’m overcautious
If I felt my vision currently impaired I wouldn't get behind the wheel.
If I felt safe to drive but was concerned after a serious illness I'd certainly consider a short drive first before setting off on a cross country drive.
Speaking for myself I tend to go to the toilet before I set out on long journeys.
Clearly others follow a different practice and enjoy using the facilities at service stations.
Each to their own I suppose.
His four year old child must also have an unusually cast iron constitution. When mine were young, a desperate pit stop request was normally made at the most inopportune moment.
Verdict? A farrago of confected nonsense put together only once enough time had passed to know what were the hard bits of evidence his case had to meet - hence the admission he had been to Barnard Castle.
His description carefully included all the firm sightings, and placed them in as innocent a context as possible. It ended up all too smooth to be anything other than a post hoc rationalisation. It included as little as possible which might one day be contradicted by new evidence. So a reasonable effort except for one thing.
The Barnard Castle thing on Easter Day had always stood out as a problem, and the failure to admit or account for it earlier suggests a hope, until yesterday (PM evaded it) or today, that it could be denied.
His explanation was plainly fanciful. Really apart from complex and true explanations (which of the lawful sort were clearly not available) he would have done better to use 'exercise'. Actually I think he was on a trip out, unlike the millions denied a trip to church on Easter Day.
His weakness here undermines his credibility generally. So, ultimately a fail.
Except that he explicitly said he didn't go to the castle.
He went with his family for a short drive, because he wasn't sure if driving would make him feel unwell, and wanted to take a short drive before undertaking a much longer drive back to work.
They went to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped by the river briefly, then returned to their lodgings. They didn't go to the castle.
(This is why I said initially that people's impressions of this afternoon's performance will vary hugely, depending on whether they watched it live or not).
I suspect the government will win this battle at the risk of losing the war. Here’s hoping it’s only the electoral one and not the pandemic one...
I fear it will be the pandemic one they will lose.
I expect we'll have another wave (likely this year) and we will not see the same level of compliance with the lockdown rules.
FWIW I doubt very much that an attempt to reimpose a more severe lockdown would've been met with the same degree of acquiescence as the initial one - but yes, I dare say that the Cummings episode will have made public cooperation even more difficult to secure.
The Government can close businesses back down again if it wants to, but getting private citizens not to go out of the house when they feel like it, meet up and visit each others' homes requires buy-in from the population. The police can go around popular places like parks and put roadblocks up to try to enforce stay at home regulations, but they can't compel everyone to do so in the event of mass disobedience.
We're not going back to April regardless of what occurs.
To take that grilling and not slip up shows why the government need him. He is a smooth operator. The press will try and find holes in his account but should they not be accountable if not for saying he made 2 trips to Durham and went to the Castle?
Well, if they have copies of the published government guidance at the time, together with the details of the subsequent updates to it, before and after the Guardian contacted Downing St. for comment, they might find several holes.
Looking at the government website, it appears that versions of the advice prior to the most recent update are not there.
If you're referring to the stuff about children, it doesn't use the phrase "exceptional circumstances", but it does say you may not be able to follow the guidance about self-isolation completely. The version from late March is at the Internet Archive.
Just as a question: @Philip_Thompson - as the father of a young lad yourself, would you, if there was reason to suspect your eyesight might be impaired, test it by going for a 30-mile drive with your son in the car? Rather than, say, wait a few more days and check in over Zoom.
I really wouldn’t, myself, but I’m wondering if I’m overcautious
If I felt my vision currently impaired I wouldn't get behind the wheel.
If I felt safe to drive but was concerned after a serious illness I'd certainly consider a short drive first before setting off on a cross country drive.
Marks out of 10 for Dominic Cummings' performance this afternoon:
Probably a grudging 7/10
I'd give him 2
a. By his own admission he walked off his job, without consulting - or even informing - his boss, the acting PM or the Cabinet Secretary. He's clearly incapable of doing ANY real job in a complex organisation. b. At no stage did he admit remorse.
Whether that makes Johnson fire him is debatable. But both Johnson and Cummings are even less capable of doing their jobs than I'd have expected. Both have to go.
And will within the next year
A few weeks ago, Boris overcame death itself.
I think he can handle this trumped-up bullshit
I know that you are BluestBlue diehard loyalist - I respect that. But in politics a little self-awareness is helpful. Your voters - your key voters especially in red wall seats - are absolutely fucking furious. I don't know how old you are or how long you've been interested in politics but there are plenty of examples of governments shitting the bed and never recovering.
You should be concerned that you consider this to be "trumped-up bullshit" when so many Tory voters do not. Why not go talk to a Tory MP about their email inbox. Or read the Daily Mail. Then tell us how it'll all be forgotten because its trumped up bullshit
Are they though? According to Yougov only 45% of Leave voters think Cummings to resign compared to 66% of Remain voters who think he should go
Verdict? A farrago of confected nonsense put together only once enough time had passed to know what were the hard bits of evidence his case had to meet - hence the admission he had been to Barnard Castle.
His description carefully included all the firm sightings, and placed them in as innocent a context as possible. It ended up all too smooth to be anything other than a post hoc rationalisation. It included as little as possible which might one day be contradicted by new evidence. So a reasonable effort except for one thing.
The Barnard Castle thing on Easter Day had always stood out as a problem, and the failure to admit or account for it earlier suggests a hope, until yesterday (PM evaded it) or today, that it could be denied.
His explanation was plainly fanciful. Really apart from complex and true explanations (which of the lawful sort were clearly not available) he would have done better to use 'exercise'. Actually I think he was on a trip out, unlike the millions denied a trip to church on Easter Day.
His weakness here undermines his credibility generally. So, ultimately a fail.
Except that he explicitly said he didn't go to the castle.
He went with his family for a short drive, because he wasn't sure if driving would make him feel unwell, and wanted to take a short drive before undertaking a much longer drive back to work.
They went to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped by the river briefly, then returned to their lodgings. They didn't go to the castle.
(This is why I said initially that people's impressions of this afternoon's performance will vary hugely, depending on whether they watched it live or not).
He went for a drive to test his eyesight, a 30 mile drive that just so happened to be on his wife's birthday.
The law requires a reasonable excuse. He had one. That applies to everyone ... He must be treated the same as anyone else under the law.
Tragic circumstances, glad his child is safe after the hospital visit. Not a situation I'd wish on any parent.
But Philip, it isn't about The Law. If he's broken the law he gets bandged up, simples. It's about undermining the huge efforts of the Government and all carers and support staff in trying to defeat the virus.
He is playing the 'reasonable excuse' card. Sorry, but someone in his position cannot be seen to be making excuses, reasonable or otherwise.
Was it reasonable though? I just ran it past Mrs PtP and asked her what she thought I would have done in his position on the day of the Durham trip. She got it in one. I would have told her to go to bed and stay there while I looked after the kid, tried to arrange a Test, and ring round my friends and relatives to see what help might be available in the event that I suddenly got the virus too. I would most certainly NOT have piled her and the kid in the car for a 260 mile drive to my parents so that I had a 17 year old niece available to look after the kid in the event I came down with the Virus straight away. That would have been very UNreasonable, very much more so than many of the decisions made by other parents in far more difficult and daunting circumstances.
OK, let's accept he just made a mistake, but for the sake of the Government, his Party and the war against this Virus, he should resign.
Should he not go shopping? That's a reasonable excuse under the law? Should he not take his child to hospital? That's a reasonable excuse under the law.
Excuse isn't a negative word in the law. It has meaning. If he meets it for the law he should follow the law and do the right thing as he sees it. As should anyone.
Philip!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read what I wrote! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The LAW Philip! '...It isn't about The Law.'
Geesh. Hate using exclamation marks but you've driven me to it.
I'm sorry but it's entirely about the law. If the law is set as one thing for people but then another thing is done by those who set the law then that is inexcusable. Law makers should not be law breakers. It can't be one rule for them and one rule for others.
But if the laws not been broken then what's the issue? It's the same laws for absolutely everyone.
Sorry Philip, I'm giving up on you now. You are either being deliberately obtuse or you've started early on the falling-down liquid.
The entire Barnard Castle bit is worthy of a sketch, covering when he told Boris.
“Well, yes, I did take the family to Barnard Castle on the wife’s birthday despite the lockdown and being still in the quarantine period, and we were seen laughing and playing in the woods near there, but... um... my friend is a missionary, called ‘Great Boo’, and he’s just back from Africa, where he caught sleeping sickness and he’s been asleep ever since, but as you’ve just heard: Great Boo’s Up!”
“Um, no, wrong excuse. I’ll try again. You see, we were worried about my eyesight, so the only way I could test it was to put my recently ill wife and my four-year-old son who was just out of the hospital into my car and drive around Durham until I felt too sick to drive any more. And we just happened to end up at a local beauty spot and it just happened to be on my wife’s birthday and my son needed the loo and...”
-“The four year-old with a bladder capacity that can routinely cope with five hour drives up and down the length of England without a stop?”
“Ah, yes, him, and while we were out of the car we figured we may as well play around and have some fun, and that’s when we were seen”
-“Marvellous, Dom. I knew there just had to be a reasonable explanation”
The law requires a reasonable excuse. He had one. That applies to everyone ... He must be treated the same as anyone else under the law.
Tragic circumstances, glad his child is safe after the hospital visit. Not a situation I'd wish on any parent.
But Philip, it isn't about The Law. If he's broken the law he gets bandged up, simples. It's about undermining the huge efforts of the Government and all carers and support staff in trying to defeat the virus.
He is playing the 'reasonable excuse' card. Sorry, but someone in his position cannot be seen to be making excuses, reasonable or otherwise.
Was it reasonable though? I just ran it past Mrs PtP and asked her what she thought I would have done in his position on the day of the Durham trip. She got it in one. I would have told her to go to bed and stay there while I looked after the kid, tried to arrange a Test, and ring round my friends and relatives to see what help might be available in the event that I suddenly got the virus too. I would most certainly NOT have piled her and the kid in the car for a 260 mile drive to my parents so that I had a 17 year old niece available to look after the kid in the event I came down with the Virus straight away. That would have been very UNreasonable, very much more so than many of the decisions made by other parents in far more difficult and daunting circumstances.
OK, let's accept he just made a mistake, but for the sake of the Government, his Party and the war against this Virus, he should resign.
Should he not go shopping? That's a reasonable excuse under the law? Should he not take his child to hospital? That's a reasonable excuse under the law.
Excuse isn't a negative word in the law. It has meaning. If he meets it for the law he should follow the law and do the right thing as he sees it. As should anyone.
Philip!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read what I wrote! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The LAW Philip! '...It isn't about The Law.'
Geesh. Hate using exclamation marks but you've driven me to it.
I'm sorry but it's entirely about the law. If the law is set as one thing for people but then another thing is done by those who set the law then that is inexcusable. Law makers should not be law breakers. It can't be one rule for them and one rule for others.
But if the laws not been broken then what's the issue? It's the same laws for absolutely everyone.
The issue is that he took the piss when many, many people in far worse circumstances have gritted their teeth and got on with it.
He was tested & found wanting. Now he doesn’t even have the grace to apologise to those who he’s effectively insulted. Is there any wonder that they’re pissed off?
"Went to Barnard’s Castle to test his eyesight" my arse. He went for a nice walk in the woods on his wife’s birthday whilst better people than him were self-isolating instead of, oh, being at a relative’s funeral say, or any one of a million other things that they would have liked to do too.
The fact that he has wriggled out of legal liability via a loophole that was intended to enable battered women to escape with their children is just the icing on the cake.
Just as a question: @Philip_Thompson - as the father of a young lad yourself, would you, if there was reason to suspect your eyesight might be impaired, test it by going for a 30-mile drive with your son in the car? Rather than, say, wait a few more days and check in over Zoom.
I really wouldn’t, myself, but I’m wondering if I’m overcautious
If I felt my vision currently impaired I wouldn't get behind the wheel.
If I felt safe to drive but was concerned after a serious illness I'd certainly consider a short drive first before setting off on a cross country drive.
And why not ask his wife to drive?
Same thing surely? She's just recovered from an illness too. I have no idea if she even drives or feels up to a cross country drive either.
A cross country drive without a shorter one first after an illness could be irresponsible.
I think it's as big a pack of lies as I've ever heard, and the "reasonable excuse" defence wouldn't hold up for a moment if it ever got to court, but it's not going to court, and if Johnson really won't or daren't sack him he's going to stay.
Quite contemptible, but on the other hand exactly what we've come to expect.
Just as a question: @Philip_Thompson - as the father of a young lad yourself, would you, if there was reason to suspect your eyesight might be impaired, test it by going for a 30-mile drive with your son in the car? Rather than, say, wait a few more days and check in over Zoom.
I really wouldn’t, myself, but I’m wondering if I’m overcautious
If I felt my vision currently impaired I wouldn't get behind the wheel.
If I felt safe to drive but was concerned after a serious illness I'd certainly consider a short drive first before setting off on a cross country drive.
With your kid in the car? I wouldn’t, not if there was any reasonable chance I might be incapable. Such as when he was too sick to continue for a while at Barnard’s Castle.
My fear (well the fear of my father and his fellow medical professionals, sorry Eadric) is that the next wave will coincide with normal flu season/Christmas.
The government will say the elderly/vulnerable should shield, but people will ignore that and go visit elderly/vulnerable family over Christmas and they'll you have an even higher death toll than during the first wave.
I've just looked at the Mailonline. It is the "I did a 30 miles drive with my wife and kid to check my eyesight was OK" line that is getting the most ridicule.
Speaking for myself I tend to go to the toilet before I set out on long journeys.
Clearly others follow a different practice and enjoy using the facilities at service stations.
Each to their own I suppose.
His four year old child must also have an unusually cast iron constitution. When mine were young, a desperate pit stop request was normally made at the most inopportune moment.
He described his child going in a bush on the side of the road and seemed distinctly uncomfortable doing so. I imagine many parents have been in that situation.
On 5 don't you think Johnson had better things to worry about?
Plainly he should have worried about it in that it HAS become a huge story and HAS distracted from everything else.
He failed to identify a clear and present danger, failed to realise how it would look to ordinary people, failed to pick up on the damage to future health messages.
This links to my sixth point. Cummings says at one time Number 10 was akin to a recovery ward, with people going down with it then coming back in. Merkel had a single case in her office and shut it down hard and fast.
That, in a nutshell, explains the gulf in death rates between the UK and Germany (not specifically that Number 10 continued but that none of it was taken with adequate seriousness until far too late).
I've just looked at the Mailonline. It is the "I did a 30 miles drive with my wife and kid to check my eyesight was OK" line that is getting the most ridicule.
Real big error that, as it will be repeated over and over
"Reasonable excuse" is an objective rather than subjective test, so his view of the right thing to do isn't really relevant.
I'll give a good example for "reasonable excuse" as I've used it myself during the (still current) regulations. Till the end of April we had to feed and skip our horses, now during that period some friends of ours fell ill - not tested but heavily suspected to be Covid-19. At that point they did not leave the house even to tend to their animals - we did so. "Reasonable excuse" unless I hideously misread the rules applied to people who were fit and well, not to anyone with Covid symptons.
If you have Covid symptons your daily exercise, shopping, literally anything else goes out the window.
Verdict? A farrago of confected nonsense put together only once enough time had passed to know what were the hard bits of evidence his case had to meet - hence the admission he had been to Barnard Castle.
His description carefully included all the firm sightings, and placed them in as innocent a context as possible. It ended up all too smooth to be anything other than a post hoc rationalisation. It included as little as possible which might one day be contradicted by new evidence. So a reasonable effort except for one thing.
The Barnard Castle thing on Easter Day had always stood out as a problem, and the failure to admit or account for it earlier suggests a hope, until yesterday (PM evaded it) or today, that it could be denied.
His explanation was plainly fanciful. Really apart from complex and true explanations (which of the lawful sort were clearly not available) he would have done better to use 'exercise'. Actually I think he was on a trip out, unlike the millions denied a trip to church on Easter Day.
His weakness here undermines his credibility generally. So, ultimately a fail.
Except that he explicitly said he didn't go to the castle.
He went with his family for a short drive, because he wasn't sure if driving would make him feel unwell, and wanted to take a short drive before undertaking a much longer drive back to work.
They went to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped by the river briefly, then returned to their lodgings. They didn't go to the castle.
(This is why I said initially that people's impressions of this afternoon's performance will vary hugely, depending on whether they watched it live or not).
He went for a drive to test his eyesight, a 30 mile drive that just so happened to be on his wife's birthday.
Come on now, you're just being silly
That just happened to be after his quarantine period and just before his cross country drive home. What a coincidence.
Verdict? A farrago of confected nonsense put together only once enough time had passed to know what were the hard bits of evidence his case had to meet - hence the admission he had been to Barnard Castle.
His description carefully included all the firm sightings, and placed them in as innocent a context as possible. It ended up all too smooth to be anything other than a post hoc rationalisation. It included as little as possible which might one day be contradicted by new evidence. So a reasonable effort except for one thing.
The Barnard Castle thing on Easter Day had always stood out as a problem, and the failure to admit or account for it earlier suggests a hope, until yesterday (PM evaded it) or today, that it could be denied.
His explanation was plainly fanciful. Really apart from complex and true explanations (which of the lawful sort were clearly not available) he would have done better to use 'exercise'. Actually I think he was on a trip out, unlike the millions denied a trip to church on Easter Day.
His weakness here undermines his credibility generally. So, ultimately a fail.
Except that he explicitly said he didn't go to the castle.
He went with his family for a short drive, because he wasn't sure if driving would make him feel unwell, and wanted to take a short drive before undertaking a much longer drive back to work.
They went to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped by the river briefly, then returned to their lodgings. They didn't go to the castle.
(This is why I said initially that people's impressions of this afternoon's performance will vary hugely, depending on whether they watched it live or not).
He went for a drive to test his eyesight, a 30 mile drive that just so happened to be on his wife's birthday.
Come on now, you're just being silly
That just happened to be after his quarantine period and just before his cross country drive home. What a coincidence.
I’m just off the phone to my mum. Her unprompted verdict? “Smarmy”. “Why did they all need to get out of the car if they were going for a drive?” “I feel sorry for all those people who stuck to the rules.” “He’s got to go.” “It makes Boris Johnson look worse and worse”.
Comparing and contrasting Boris' performance yesterday with Cummings' effort today it is easy to see who is the brains of the outfit.
"Reasonable excuse" is an objective rather than subjective test, so his view of the right thing to do isn't really relevant.
I'll give a good example for "reasonable excuse" as I've used it myself during the (still current) regulations. Till the end of April we had to feed and skip our horses, now during that period some friends of ours fell ill - not tested but heavily suspected to be Covid-19. At that point they did not leave the house even to tend to their animals - we did so. "Reasonable excuse" unless I hideously misread the rules applied to people who were fit and well, not to anyone with Covid symptons.
If you have Covid symptons your daily exercise, shopping, literally anything else goes out the window.
To be fair, I think Cummings covered that part off today. Whether you believe him or not is another matter.
"Reasonable excuse" is an objective rather than subjective test, so his view of the right thing to do isn't really relevant.
I'll give a good example for "reasonable excuse" as I've used it myself during the (still current) regulations. Till the end of April we had to feed and skip our horses, now during that period some friends of ours fell ill - not tested but heavily suspected to be Covid-19. At that point they did not leave the house even to tend to their animals - we did so. "Reasonable excuse" unless I hideously misread the rules applied to people who were fit and well, not to anyone with Covid symptons.
If you have Covid symptons your daily exercise, shopping, literally anything else goes out the window.
You’re not supposed to go out of the window either if you have symptoms.
It's not that difficult to sit in a car for 4 hours as long as you go to the loo just beforehand and don't drink too much during the journey.
I've never managed it... after 2 hours my satnav starts shouting at me to take a break....and I think 4 hours would be an unbelievable run traversing a 250 mile roadwork trip across England.....
And...it was very fortunate his car had a full tank....and his wife was nauseous (which probably wouldn't be good for her other end)...and he had a four year old kid who one would expect had not been dehydrated purposely for the trip....
But apart from that....a highly credible account by Dom....and that was just the start of things....
That reliable barometer of the nation, the Daily Mail best rated comments, are not favourable. At all.
If we governed the country according to the Daily Mail's top comments, we'd be parking the entire Royal Navy in the Channel and blasting everything in sight, so people should really be careful what they wish for.
He's a massive c*** and he's going to destroy the party's credibility with voters. He has to go and so does Boris.
Though for now that seems unlikely.
I agree that this is likely to be severely damaging to government credibility for the foreseeable future, and while I am no fan at all of the current government, that is not a good thing. They have a job to do, and this will hinder it.
Yes, that's the issue. How the hell is this government going to ask people to quarantine themselves for 14 days for coming into to contact with people who have the virus? They've just closed ranks to protect someone who admitted to breaking quarantine three times.
My fear (well the fear of my father and his fellow medical professionals, sorry Eadric) is that the next wave will coincide with normal flu season/Christmas.
It's going to be a nightmare, anyone with a sniffle will have to isolate their household, and the medics will be on a wild goose chase trying to find the real COVID-19 cases.
Having successfully spearheaded the Vote Leave campaign you can understand why Cummings might think the British public will believe any old shit, but I think his Barnard Castle "I wanted to see if I was going blind so I took my wife and small child for a spin in the car" story is really taking the piss. Fail. Needs to go asap.
Just as a question: @Philip_Thompson - as the father of a young lad yourself, would you, if there was reason to suspect your eyesight might be impaired, test it by going for a 30-mile drive with your son in the car? Rather than, say, wait a few more days and check in over Zoom.
I really wouldn’t, myself, but I’m wondering if I’m overcautious
If I felt my vision currently impaired I wouldn't get behind the wheel.
If I felt safe to drive but was concerned after a serious illness I'd certainly consider a short drive first before setting off on a cross country drive.
With your kid in the car? I wouldn’t, not if there was any reasonable chance I might be incapable. Such as when he was too sick to continue for a while at Barnard’s Castle.
I don't think he said he was too sick to continue did he? I thought he said his child needed to relieve themselves?
Anyway I've regularly driven in the car with my children and felt the need to pull over because I'm tired from the drive and need a break before continuing. Motorways across the country always say to take a break. I don't see that as an issue?
It's not that difficult to sit in a car for 4 hours as long as you go to the loo just beforehand and don't drink too much during the journey.
I've never managed it... after 2 hours my satnav starts shouting at me to take a break....and I think 4 hours would be an unbelievable run traversing a 250 mile roadwork trip across England.....
And...it was very fortunate his car had a full tank....and his wife was nauseous (which probably wouldn't be good for her other end)...and he had a four year old kid who one would expect had not been dehydrated purposely for the trip....
But apart from that....a highly credible account by Dom....and that was just the start of things....
I’ve driven six or seven hours straight through before. I find once I’m driving I just prefer to keep going.
But I’m younger than Cummings, I only drive when fully fit and I drive alone.
I’m not willing to judge his ‘no stops’ story as incredible or credible on that basis. The point is that he shouldn’t have done it in the first place. His reasoning for doing so is not merely specious, it’s fatuous.
The account he gave was at complete variance with his wife's account on the Today programme and in the Spectator. This just makes it even more difficult for his friend BoJo
Has any other country had a “second wave”? If we don’t have a vaccine by then, we’ll have to live with the virus. We can’t go through this lockdown hell again.
1. Barnard Castle eye test is the laugh line and very dangerous. That will be repeated ad nauseum in the press and satires, and undermines credibility. I don't think anyone seriously believes it, however credulous they are on the rest.
Verdict? A farrago of confected nonsense put together only once enough time had passed to know what were the hard bits of evidence his case had to meet - hence the admission he had been to Barnard Castle.
His description carefully included all the firm sightings, and placed them in as innocent a context as possible. It ended up all too smooth to be anything other than a post hoc rationalisation. It included as little as possible which might one day be contradicted by new evidence. So a reasonable effort except for one thing.
The Barnard Castle thing on Easter Day had always stood out as a problem, and the failure to admit or account for it earlier suggests a hope, until yesterday (PM evaded it) or today, that it could be denied.
His explanation was plainly fanciful. Really apart from complex and true explanations (which of the lawful sort were clearly not available) he would have done better to use 'exercise'. Actually I think he was on a trip out, unlike the millions denied a trip to church on Easter Day.
His weakness here undermines his credibility generally. So, ultimately a fail.
Except that he explicitly said he didn't go to the castle.
He went with his family for a short drive, because he wasn't sure if driving would make him feel unwell, and wanted to take a short drive before undertaking a much longer drive back to work.
They went to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped by the river briefly, then returned to their lodgings. They didn't go to the castle.
(This is why I said initially that people's impressions of this afternoon's performance will vary hugely, depending on whether they watched it live or not).
He went for a drive to test his eyesight, a 30 mile drive that just so happened to be on his wife's birthday.
Come on now, you're just being silly
That just happened to be after his quarantine period and just before his cross country drive home. What a coincidence.
Are you arguing in bad faith on purpose?
I'm not arguing in bad faith. The timing lines up to what Cummings said. You saying he's lying without any evidence to the contrary is bad faith.
He's a massive c*** and he's going to destroy the party's credibility with voters. He has to go and so does Boris.
Though for now that seems unlikely.
I agree that this is likely to be severely damaging to government credibility for the foreseeable future, and while I am no fan at all of the current government, that is not a good thing. They have a job to do, and this will hinder it.
Yes, that's the issue. How the hell is this government going to ask people to quarantine themselves for 14 days for coming into to contact with people who have the virus? They've just closed ranks to protect someone who admitted to breaking quarantine three times.
True I guess the police or Border force will be as lenient when travelers return on a flight next month.
Speaking for myself I tend to go to the toilet before I set out on long journeys.
Clearly others follow a different practice and enjoy using the facilities at service stations.
Each to their own I suppose.
His four year old child must also have an unusually cast iron constitution. When mine were young, a desperate pit stop request was normally made at the most inopportune moment.
Doesn't Michael McIntyre have a good piece on the curious inability of 4-yr olds to predict when they will need the loo on long car journeys.
My fear (well the fear of my father and his fellow medical professionals, sorry Eadric) is that the next wave will coincide with normal flu season/Christmas.
The government will say the elderly/vulnerable should shield, but people will ignore that and go visit elderly/vulnerable family over Christmas and they'll you have an even higher death toll than during the first wave.
If the next wave occurs when the weather is consistently shite the public won't be doing all this 2m apart in the back garden nonsense, they'll just be in the house of whomever they're visiting.
Speaking for myself I tend to go to the toilet before I set out on long journeys.
Clearly others follow a different practice and enjoy using the facilities at service stations.
Each to their own I suppose.
His four year old child must also have an unusually cast iron constitution. When mine were young, a desperate pit stop request was normally made at the most inopportune moment.
Doesn't Michael McIntyre have a good piece on the curious inability of 4-yr olds to predict when they will need the loo.
Did he not drive up at night? Kids often sleep on longer car journeys than shorter daytime ones
Verdict? A farrago of confected nonsense put together only once enough time had passed to know what were the hard bits of evidence his case had to meet - hence the admission he had been to Barnard Castle.
His description carefully included all the firm sightings, and placed them in as innocent a context as possible. It ended up all too smooth to be anything other than a post hoc rationalisation. It included as little as possible which might one day be contradicted by new evidence. So a reasonable effort except for one thing.
The Barnard Castle thing on Easter Day had always stood out as a problem, and the failure to admit or account for it earlier suggests a hope, until yesterday (PM evaded it) or today, that it could be denied.
His explanation was plainly fanciful. Really apart from complex and true explanations (which of the lawful sort were clearly not available) he would have done better to use 'exercise'. Actually I think he was on a trip out, unlike the millions denied a trip to church on Easter Day.
His weakness here undermines his credibility generally. So, ultimately a fail.
Except that he explicitly said he didn't go to the castle.
He went with his family for a short drive, because he wasn't sure if driving would make him feel unwell, and wanted to take a short drive before undertaking a much longer drive back to work.
They went to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped by the river briefly, then returned to their lodgings. They didn't go to the castle.
(This is why I said initially that people's impressions of this afternoon's performance will vary hugely, depending on whether they watched it live or not).
He went for a drive to test his eyesight, a 30 mile drive that just so happened to be on his wife's birthday.
Come on now, you're just being silly
That just happened to be after his quarantine period and just before his cross country drive home. What a coincidence.
Wasn’t there supposed to be an announcement on the lockdown easing today?
We did. Did you miss one of the government’s most senior members givinga long statement saying that you can do whatever the hell you like if it suits you?
My fear (well the fear of my father and his fellow medical professionals, sorry Eadric) is that the next wave will coincide with normal flu season/Christmas.
The government will say the elderly/vulnerable should shield, but people will ignore that and go visit elderly/vulnerable family over Christmas and they'll you have an even higher death toll than during the first wave.
If the next wave occurs when the weather is consistently shite the public won't be doing all this 2m apart in the back garden nonsense, they'll just be in the house of whomever they're visiting.
1. Barnard Castle eye test is the laugh line and very dangerous. That will be repeated ad nauseum in the press and satires, and undermines credibility. I don't think anyone seriously believes it, however credulous they are on the rest.
If Big Dom had stepped down on Saturday, done a soft soap statement to a friendly journalist, basically nobody would be talking about this now and he would be back in government in no time.
Instead this is going to be like David Cameron / Andy Coulson, who knew what, when, where, day after day of drip drip drip.
He drove to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped briefly by a river and returned to his lodgings. Didn't go near the castle.
It doesn’t matter where he drove. If he drive just one foot on the public highway with reason to think his vision was insufficient to safely drive then he committed an offence.
That’s what I cannot believe. Even if you accept his version of lockdown/quarantine, which the Attorney General does but a judge may not, he’s just freely admitted to a crime live on air.
What a numpty.
That was what I thought. Driving without care and attention.
It’s actually a separate, specific offence under Section 96 of the RTA (1988) to drive with impaired vision.
(1)If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such (whether through a defect which cannot be or one which is not for the time being sufficiently corrected) that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under this Part of this Act for the purposes of tests of competence to drive, he is guilty of an offence.
Except that he didn’t. It might have been so he checked. If he’d decided it wasn’t safe to drive then he would have been in breach. But he was safe so he didn’t commit an offence
I've just looked at the Mailonline. It is the "I did a 30 miles drive with my wife and kid to check my eyesight was OK" line that is getting the most ridicule.
It sounds like something out of one of those collections of things morons write on car insurance claims, doesn't it?
He drove to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped briefly by a river and returned to his lodgings. Didn't go near the castle.
It doesn’t matter where he drove. If he drive just one foot on the public highway with reason to think his vision was insufficient to safely drive then he committed an offence.
That’s what I cannot believe. Even if you accept his version of lockdown/quarantine, which the Attorney General does but a judge may not, he’s just freely admitted to a crime live on air.
What a numpty.
That was what I thought. Driving without care and attention.
It’s actually a separate, specific offence under Section 96 of the RTA (1988) to drive with impaired vision.
(1)If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such (whether through a defect which cannot be or one which is not for the time being sufficiently corrected) that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under this Part of this Act for the purposes of tests of competence to drive, he is guilty of an offence.
Except that he didn’t. It might have been so he checked. If he’d decided it wasn’t safe to drive then he would have been in breach. But he was safe so he didn’t commit an offence
What are you on about @Charles ? Come on, you’re better than this. He left his “home” to go for a drive which was not necessary. He should have simply stayed at “home” if he wasn’t sure.
Staying at home wasn’t a request, it was an instruction remember!
If Big Dom had stepped down on Saturday, done a soft soap statement to a friendly journalist, basically nobody would be talking about this now and he would be back in government in no time.
Instead this is going to be like David Cameron / Andy Coulson, who knew what, when, where, day after day of drip drip drip.
Surely it'll be worth it if he stays. Who will remember this in a year, let alone 5? I think he should have stepped down and advised from a lesser role but after given his version of events it's fair enough he stays.
I have addressed it repeatedly. Safety comes first. Before going on a long cross country drive after illness going on a short drive first makes sense.
You’re embarrassing yourself. We were instructed to stay at home. If he didn’t feel he was safe to drive, he should have stayed at home. Again, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Once again the press turned up with their prepared questions and unable to think on their feet. It beggars belief that not one of them questioned either driving to test his eyesight or why his wife could not drive. Can they do any better at the regular press conference?
Having successfully spearheaded the Vote Leave campaign you can understand why Cummings might think the British public will believe any old shit, but I think his Barnard Castle "I wanted to see if I was going blind so I took my wife and small child for a spin in the car" story is really taking the piss. Fail. Needs to go asap.
I met a Tory grandee who told me that Boris was incapable of telling the truth... I don't think Cummings' integrity is the question since he is a lying little shit who reports to a man who is uniquely dishonest in all aspects of his life....
The problem here for Boris though is that the whole Cummings fiasco is a huge liability...and today has not changed that...
From the Highway Code: 2. Fitness to drive (90 to 94) 90 Make sure that you are fit to drive. You MUST report to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) any health condition likely to affect your driving. Law RTA 1988 sect 94
Basically he was smart enough to come clean where he knew the evidence existed and lie about the rest where he knew nobody could prove otherwise. I'm sure that's why he waited such a long time before offering an explanation - he wanted to know what the press could prove and what they couldn't.
Does anyone believe the story about driving to Barnard Castle to see if his eyesight was up to the drive back to london? Does anyone believe they made the trip from London to Durham without any of them needing a pee?
He came across OK but the failure to apologise won't help his cause. The fact remains that he did completely ignore the spirit of the guidelines and millions of others didn't.
He also opened up new questions by admitting he went back to No 10 after going home to his wife who had Covid symptoms. Should he have been going to a hospital to pick up his child whilst self isolating?
You think it's a good idea after an illness to drive cross country without doing a short drive first is a good idea?
Seems like a good idea to do a small drive before a long one to me. Like a warm up before exercise.
Whether its a good idea or not is irrelevant mate. Its in breach of the law.
Not if you're doing it to avoid harm it's not.
Doing a cross country drive if you're not safe to do so is harmful. Doing a short drive first makes sense to avoid the harm of that.
What are you on about? He was safely at his Parent’s house. The harm had already been avoided. Driving back to London was not necessary to avoid harm. Certainly not if his vision was impaired. You’re embarrassing yourself.
You think it's a good idea after an illness to drive cross country without doing a short drive first is a good idea?
Seems like a good idea to do a small drive before a long one to me. Like a warm up before exercise.
The point is that both were apparently getting towards recovery and preparing to go home.
He says she was worried about his eyesight so they went to a (not that) local beauty spot. But there was no suggestion she had any such problem, or couldn't take over from him had he had issues.
The position on this aspect is risible. The truth is that they felt well enough to take an hour round trip to a beauty spot for her birthday despite it not being allowed. You have to really work NOT to conclude that.
I have addressed it repeatedly. Safety comes first. Before going on a long cross country drive after illness going on a short drive first makes sense.
30 miles is not a short drive. A test drive if you think you might not be safe is not one where you bring your wife and child. You risk putting them - as well as others - at serious risk.
Honestly sometimes you do give the impression you will swallow any old rubbish.
Cummings press conference is the first time I have ever heard him speak and I expect he may have done sufficient to remain in place. The vox pop from Barnard Castle was quite positive for him especially from women
My anger is directed at Boris for his abymissal performance last night confirming my concern that he is not recovered. He made the issue worse, much worse
You think it's a good idea after an illness to drive cross country without doing a short drive first is a good idea?
Seems like a good idea to do a small drive before a long one to me. Like a warm up before exercise.
There's a game that fund managers play with brokers getting them to change their minds, completely contradict themselves and embrace increasingly absurd positions during the course of one conversation.
Do you ever think that Dom and Boris are playing that game with you?
I have addressed it repeatedly. Safety comes first. Before going on a long cross country drive after illness going on a short drive first makes sense.
So why take his son? He had nieces who could look after the child if he wasn't sure about his ability to drive?
Because he never actually met his nieces during his trip, as he said today.
They were on standby in case both parents fell sick at the same time and were unable to look after him, but as it happens weren't required.
I'm sorry this is utter bollocks, if I wasn't sure about my ability to drive, I wouldn't take my kids along to make sure, I'd have left them with the nieces.
Comments
"Reasonable excuse" is an objective rather than subjective test, so his view of the right thing to do isn't really relevant.
An analogy is theft - there has to be dishonesty in the eyes of reasonable people. Whether the thief considered himself dishonest isn't relevant*.
* Actually it was until 2017 on theft but no longer. Specifically on "reasonable excuse" this was a bit up in the air until 2018, but again is now settled.
I hope, but without much confidence, that government has been learning lessons from the last three months.
He went with his family for a short drive, because he wasn't sure if driving would make him feel unwell, and wanted to take a short drive before undertaking a much longer drive back to work.
They went to the outskirts of the castle town, stopped by the river briefly, then returned to their lodgings. They didn't go to the castle.
(This is why I said initially that people's impressions of this afternoon's performance will vary hugely, depending on whether they watched it live or not).
The Government can close businesses back down again if it wants to, but getting private citizens not to go out of the house when they feel like it, meet up and visit each others' homes requires buy-in from the population. The police can go around popular places like parks and put roadblocks up to try to enforce stay at home regulations, but they can't compel everyone to do so in the event of mass disobedience.
We're not going back to April regardless of what occurs.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/05/23/56b74/2
Come on now, you're just being silly
Laters.
“Well, yes, I did take the family to Barnard Castle on the wife’s birthday despite the lockdown and being still in the quarantine period, and we were seen laughing and playing in the woods near there, but... um... my friend is a missionary, called ‘Great Boo’, and he’s just back from Africa, where he caught sleeping sickness and he’s been asleep ever since, but as you’ve just heard: Great Boo’s Up!”
“Um, no, wrong excuse. I’ll try again. You see, we were worried about my eyesight, so the only way I could test it was to put my recently ill wife and my four-year-old son who was just out of the hospital into my car and drive around Durham until I felt too sick to drive any more. And we just happened to end up at a local beauty spot and it just happened to be on my wife’s birthday and my son needed the loo and...”
-“The four year-old with a bladder capacity that can routinely cope with five hour drives up and down the length of England without a stop?”
“Ah, yes, him, and while we were out of the car we figured we may as well play around and have some fun, and that’s when we were seen”
-“Marvellous, Dom. I knew there just had to be a reasonable explanation”
Some legal people will be bringing cases against him
He was tested & found wanting. Now he doesn’t even have the grace to apologise to those who he’s effectively insulted. Is there any wonder that they’re pissed off?
"Went to Barnard’s Castle to test his eyesight" my arse. He went for a nice walk in the woods on his wife’s birthday whilst better people than him were self-isolating instead of, oh, being at a relative’s funeral say, or any one of a million other things that they would have liked to do too.
The fact that he has wriggled out of legal liability via a loophole that was intended to enable battered women to escape with their children is just the icing on the cake.
A cross country drive without a shorter one first after an illness could be irresponsible.
Quite contemptible, but on the other hand exactly what we've come to expect.
I wouldn’t, not if there was any reasonable chance I might be incapable. Such as when he was too sick to continue for a while at Barnard’s Castle.
The government will say the elderly/vulnerable should shield, but people will ignore that and go visit elderly/vulnerable family over Christmas and they'll you have an even higher death toll than during the first wave.
He failed to identify a clear and present danger, failed to realise how it would look to ordinary people, failed to pick up on the damage to future health messages.
This links to my sixth point. Cummings says at one time Number 10 was akin to a recovery ward, with people going down with it then coming back in. Merkel had a single case in her office and shut it down hard and fast.
That, in a nutshell, explains the gulf in death rates between the UK and Germany (not specifically that Number 10 continued but that none of it was taken with adequate seriousness until far too late).
If you have Covid symptons your daily exercise, shopping, literally anything else goes out the window.
That's a big mistake too, a lot of people think you cocked up Dominic
And...it was very fortunate his car had a full tank....and his wife was nauseous (which probably wouldn't be good for her other end)...and he had a four year old kid who one would expect had not been dehydrated purposely for the trip....
But apart from that....a highly credible account by Dom....and that was just the start of things....
1st Barnard Castle 4/6 favourite. (Backed in from Even money).
Fitness in question, so needed the run. Produced just before turning for home. Never in danger.
Also it was his first time out and its not clear how well he handled the going.
Anyway I've regularly driven in the car with my children and felt the need to pull over because I'm tired from the drive and need a break before continuing. Motorways across the country always say to take a break. I don't see that as an issue?
But I’m younger than Cummings, I only drive when fully fit and I drive alone.
I’m not willing to judge his ‘no stops’ story as incredible or credible on that basis. The point is that he shouldn’t have done it in the first place. His reasoning for doing so is not merely specious, it’s fatuous.
Many people think the whole coronovirus thing has already been overhyped and sequels are rarely as good or popular.
https://twitter.com/donne_mark/status/1264961895183921152
I'm going to guess there's a major announcement coming, to try and drown out the other story.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1264963267136544769?s=21
PROTECT THE NHS
SAVE LIVES
Seems like a good idea to do a small drive before a long one to me. Like a warm up before exercise.
In a way it's trivia, but it's a big impediment to people buying the rest of it because it's risible.
You're so off the deep end
Instead this is going to be like David Cameron / Andy Coulson, who knew what, when, where, day after day of drip drip drip.
Why would he give such a silly explanation when there is a more obvious one available?
He also said today, that his family of three never met with anyone else during their whole trip, so if the wife came along, their son would too.
Staying at home wasn’t a request, it was an instruction remember!
I don't think Cummings' integrity is the question since he is a lying little shit who reports to a man who is uniquely dishonest in all aspects of his life....
The problem here for Boris though is that the whole Cummings fiasco is
a huge liability...and today has not changed that...
2. Fitness to drive (90 to 94)
90
Make sure that you are fit to drive. You MUST report to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) any health condition likely to affect your driving.
Law RTA 1988 sect 94
Does anyone believe the story about driving to Barnard Castle to see if his eyesight was up to the drive back to london? Does anyone believe they made the trip from London to Durham without any of them needing a pee?
He came across OK but the failure to apologise won't help his cause. The fact remains that he did completely ignore the spirit of the guidelines and millions of others didn't.
He also opened up new questions by admitting he went back to No 10 after going home to his wife who had Covid symptoms. Should he have been going to a hospital to pick up his child whilst self isolating?
Doing a cross country drive if you're not safe to do so is harmful. Doing a short drive first makes sense to avoid the harm of that.
Meanwhile Dom is swanning about the country as he likes.
They were on standby in case both parents fell sick at the same time and were unable to look after him, but as it happens weren't required.
He says she was worried about his eyesight so they went to a (not that) local beauty spot. But there was no suggestion she had any such problem, or couldn't take over from him had he had issues.
The position on this aspect is risible. The truth is that they felt well enough to take an hour round trip to a beauty spot for her birthday despite it not being allowed. You have to really work NOT to conclude that.
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1264975804208947208?s=20
https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1264968022239981569?s=20
Rishi Sunak followed Boris and backed Cummings over the weekend
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1264138986848759809?s=20
Still no tweets or statements of support for Cummings from Priti Patel
Honestly sometimes you do give the impression you will swallow any old rubbish.
My anger is directed at Boris for his abymissal performance last night confirming my concern that he is not recovered. He made the issue worse, much worse
Do you ever think that Dom and Boris are playing that game with you?