I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
A simple yes would have sufficed.
And of course, that's assuming that the current version of the risible and ever-changing story put forward by the pair is the gospel truth, which seems implausible.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
Well, for some the hatred towards him / Cummings is 100% Brexit, but yes, Tory Bear pointing out all the Remainers on the panel ahead of time, is as I say just "getting excuses in early".
Well, for some the hatred towards him / Cummings is 100% Brexit, but yes, Tory Bear pointing out all the Remainers on the panel ahead of time, is as I say just "getting excuses in early".
The Cummings saga is not a Brexit issue but Brexit is an available excuse for why people are being mean to Dominic and that excuse seems to be being used (in part) to justify his retention.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
There are far better ways of checking out your eyesight, Philip, so it is unfortunate for the defendant that coincidentally it was on his wife's birthday, coincidentally happened to finish up at a local tourist spot and coincidentally they had to get out because someone felt sick.
Now Stephen Crabb is having to correct the PM that his comments on what we are allowed to do is only in England...
I have listened to the Welsh minister today who is demanding furlough payments continue to October and beyond even though they seem intent on keeping Wales in lockdown for much longer than England. I expect the same to happen in Scotland
This may well be a big story in the next six months
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
Why couldn't one of the close family members (that the Cummings family had travelled 260 miles to be adjacent to in case of just such an emergency!) accompany the lad?
Wasn't that the whole purpose of being in Durham in the first place?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
LOL!
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
I hold no brief for Mr T, but there have been occasions in the past, and no doubt will be again, when I have taken a short trip...... 'round the block' ........ to see how I feel before driving a long distance. Usually with someone with me, although not with a small child in the car.
Well, for some the hatred towards him / Cummings is 100% Brexit, but yes, Tory Bear pointing out all the Remainers on the panel ahead of time, is as I say just "getting excuses in early".
The Cummings saga is not a Brexit issue but Brexit is an available excuse for why people are being mean to Dominic and that excuse seems to be being used (in part) to justify his retention.
It is not a Brexit issue, it is a right or wrong issue.
Two extreme ERG members, Stephen Baker and Laurence Robertson, have both expressed their dissatisfaction over Cummings. There are probably other of a Brexit persuasion who also ain't happy.
He'll be "looking into" ?! shouldn't the 'alert level' be a matter of best estimate of scientific truth rather than something the PM decides from day to day. Will he be looking into whether tommorow will be 20 degrees and sunny too ? I hope he's paraphrasing and the actual level will be a decision of SAGE but I have my doubts.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
LOL!
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
I hold no brief for Mr T, but there have been occasions in the past, and no doubt will be again, when I have taken a short trip...... 'round the block' ........ to see how I feel before driving a long distance. Usually with someone with me, although not with a small child in the car.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
A second wave? According to the PB Brains Trust a second wave looks unlikely because Switzerland has not experienced one. Move along, nothing to see!
The thing is that neither has Denmark or Germany or Slovakia or any other European country that has move on from lockdown. Apart from the state of Georgia, where they were cavalier in the way that they re-opened to an extent even Trump commented on, there has been little sign of second waves. There are a few hotspots that emerge but with good tracking and tracing that is all that they become. Whether any of the 4 countries of the UK will have good tracking and tracing and whether the public will play their part is open to debate but the reality is there is only really one way to find out.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
It's logical to go for a drive to confirm you are in a fit state to drive.
Going for a drive doesn't mean you have to get out and go for a walk half way through the end of the drive (when you were supposed to remain local). Every time I've taken the car out for a run (you have to, to ensure the battery doesn't drain fully and brakes don't seize up) it's been from home, drive around a bit and then straight back home.
But I know that nothing anyone says will change your viewpoint that your personal desires trumps protecting the rest of the population.
Well, for some the hatred towards him / Cummings is 100% Brexit, but yes, Tory Bear pointing out all the Remainers on the panel ahead of time, is as I say just "getting excuses in early".
The Cummings saga is not a Brexit issue but Brexit is an available excuse for why people are being mean to Dominic and that excuse seems to be being used (in part) to justify his retention.
It is not a Brexit issue, it is a right or wrong issue.
Two extreme ERG members, Stephen Baker and Laurence Robertson, have both expressed their dissatisfaction over Cummings. There are probably other of a Brexit persuasion who also ain't happy.
Definitely a Brexit issue. Look at Alastair Campbell disobeying the rules today but getting angry at Cummings.
Eventually, the bigger story of the Cummings episode is how fucked the BBC are going to be as a result of the way they have played it.
Remember, Beeb: "dig two graves".....
Indeed. Also Emerson: 'When you strike the king, you must kill him.'
"Brexit educates the senses, calls into disrepute the political will, makes imperfect the unwritten constitution, brings Tories into such swift and close collision in critical moments that Leaver measures Remainer."
Mmm. Indeed so. And one is queasy about saying this but it is certain that Johnson's praising of the breaking of the rules by his Chief Advisor will lead to less risk avoidance from the public and as a consequence our Covid-19 death toll will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Or to put it another way, come Christmas, because of how our craven vacuous PM has behaved over this last week, there will be a non-trivial number of people who will be lying cold in their grave rather than sitting down to turkey and all the trimmings. Indefensible really.
You really want to go down that road? Then I'll just quote myself:
'And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.'
'Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.'
Really indefensible.
I very much don't want to go down this road. For example, I wouldn't when it comes to the late lockdown. That cost lives too but the difference there is I am sure Johnson was doing his best in a difficult situation, driven primarily by the national interest. Indeed I was warming to the guy - albeit from a chilly base - and enjoying the sensation. As I have posted before, I like to have respect for whoever is my PM. It feels much better that way. And I was getting there. The video after he came out of hozzy, for example, was great. Eloquent, sincere, and oh so very human. The sort of speech May could never have pulled off. Ditto Starmer. So since then I've been inclined to cut him slack if I can. But this has been egregious from him, this last week, and so me and "Boris" are back to square one. Which I'm sad about. I truly mean that.
As for your comparison to the papers, sorry but it simply does not work. Firstly, it's their job to report things like this. And secondly, how could they know that rather than protect the government's messaging by demanding an apology from DC for his rule breaking, Johnson would choose instead to praise him. "He acted as he saw fit as a husband and father. I will not mark him down for that." Nobody - not even you - could have seen that cumming.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
LOL!
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
I hold no brief for Mr T, but there have been occasions in the past, and no doubt will be again, when I have taken a short trip...... 'round the block' ........ to see how I feel before driving a long distance. Usually with someone with me, although not with a small child in the car.
Exactly - 'round the block', not half an hour down the road with wife and small child, landing by chance at a local tourist spot. We're not mugs ffs.
Dublin Airport @DublinAirport · 1h Apparently, the pilot is testing his eyesight just to make sure he’ll be ok for a transatlantic flight in a day or two. Sorry, that’s obviously not the case. It’s collecting information for a mapping software company.
He'll be "looking into" ?! shouldn't the 'alert level' be a matter of best estimate of scientific truth rather than something the PM decides from day to day. Will he be looking into whether tommorow will be 20 degrees and sunny too ? I hope he's paraphrasing and the actual level will be a decision of SAGE but I have my doubts.
Does SAGE even bother to meet now that the entire strategy has been blown to pieces.
Seems there is sod all lockdown in my local few streets today. Road very busy. Tons of people coming and going to each other's houses, families popping in, chatting in the gardens, smell of a barbeque as we get into early evening.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
I'm not sure what genocide denier you're referring to but yes Theresa May quit so I'm happy. The rest as they say is history.
Comparisons with Germany are insane, this was not a meaningful election to choose a government. It was a protest election to a parliament we are no longer a part of and should have already left before the vote was held. I treated that election with all the dignity it deserved.
Claire Fox. You can read up about Living Marxism, and perhaps reconsider your vote.
Or you can bluster on, and we will all know your true moral character.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
Why couldn't one of the close family members (that the Cummings family had travelled 260 miles to be adjacent to in case of just such an emergency!) accompany the lad?
Wasn't that the whole purpose of being in Durham in the first place?
In fairness and in hindsight yes, that probably would have been better. But people whose four year-olds are being taken to hospital are not generally known for highly rational thought.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
LOL!
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
I hold no brief for Mr T, but there have been occasions in the past, and no doubt will be again, when I have taken a short trip...... 'round the block' ........ to see how I feel before driving a long distance. Usually with someone with me, although not with a small child in the car.
What were you checking for out of interest?
The last occasion was when I'd had an operation on my back. Could I put my left foot hard down on the clutch. Yes I could, The previous was after I'd had labyrinthitis, which affects the balance. On that occasion I went with a driving instructor who said I was fine.
To be honest if this becomes an issue again it will only boost government support. Not sure I see No 10s logic here.
"If we're forced to lose Cummings, which a majority of Leavers want, then next we'll be fighting a Brexit extension, which a majority of Leavers are on our side for. Please don't make us move to a fight where public opinion is better for us."
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
Nicely put. And if we want to follow the dark logic of some critics that Cummingsgate has weakened the lockdown and will cost lives, then it follows incontrovertibly that in choosing to publish the story, the Guardian and Mirror deliberately chose to risk thousands of lives for the sake of trying (and failing) to destroy their political opponent.
Which would make their scoop the most irresponsible piece of journalism in modern times.
It is that fact that Cummings has got away with it with Johnson's blessing that is weakening the lockdown. The journalists certainly can't be blamed for that. It would have been reasonable to assume that once it had been highlighted that Cummings had broken the quarantine requirements that he would have been sacked.
Mr. Quincel, I did wonder, think it was on the other thread, if backbenchers who want Cummings ought might threaten to rebel on extension in order to get it.
The British Prime Minister tells Greg Clark he is powerless to change the social distancing from two meters to one because that is what some unelected unaccountable committee tell him. And on no greater justification than that's what they 'feel is right at the moment' . Scientific justification came there none.
FFS Johnson get a grip. For many businesses this is vital. Make a decision.
Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
Independence day!
I'm surprised pubs are opening on a Saturday. I would have expected a Monday would be better to ensure everything is working. However I'm sure the breweries and councils will send people round to check the correct measures are in place.
If it’s guidance with no legal status what business is it of councils?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
I tried to do the same the other day too. Only @DavidL has bitten.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
Oh, you're no fun. Don't you know that Cummings is the Typhoid Annie de nos jours? He put literally millions of people at risk by, er driving directly to Durham in his car. Where's your sense of outrage? Get a pitchfork and a burning brand and join the rest of the Remainer Establishment in marching on Downing Street immediately.....
Maybe, just maybe, the government looked at the deficit for April and thought, holy shit, we have to stop this before the entire country goes bust. I'd really like to think so. I agree with Alastair that there seems an element of panic about the removal of restrictions now but so there bloody well should be. For me, the issues the government face are the reopening of the economy, the wind down of the excellent furlough scheme, the financial help for particular industries such as the French did yesterday with their car industry, the absolute crisis in our hospitality and tourism industries, the disaster for Universities who have grown fat on far eastern fees, the chronic failure to develop either an App or a method of tracing in the last 2.5 months, the speed with which tests are being turned around, even now the capacity to test, I could go on all day, it is terrifying. Cummings is not even a deckchair on the Titanic which we are arguing about throwing overboard as the iceberg rips an ever bigger hole in the ship of state and the pathetic, irrational, disproportionate and frankly mad obsession with Cummings shows so much of what is wrong with this country today. People should grow up. There is plenty to be angry about, plenty to be genuinely worried about.1 job in Whitehall is not even close to making the list.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
Why couldn't one of the close family members (that the Cummings family had travelled 260 miles to be adjacent to in case of just such an emergency!) accompany the lad?
Wasn't that the whole purpose of being in Durham in the first place?
In fairness and in hindsight yes, that probably would have been better. But people whose four year-olds are being taken to hospital are not generally known for highly rational thought.
Precisely why people carrying infection should not be travelling around the country, breaching quarantine...
I do rather think that Johnson's lack of clarity isn't so much a tactic to protect Cummings as a symptom of the fact he isn't at all on top of his brief.
He's got no sodding idea what the current rules actually are, and can't answer even Greg Clark's relatively friendly questions in a clear way.
I do rather think that Johnson's lack of clarity isn't so much a tactic to protect Cummings as a symptom of the fact he isn't at all on top of his brief.
He's got no sodding idea what the current rules actually are, and can't answer even Greg Clark's relatively friendly questions in a clear way.
He has never been one for detail, but I think covid is still really effecting him. He can't even do the soft ball questions.
Unless he gets better (or if this is max of Boris abilities now), the men in grey suits will be along next year.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
Oh, you're no fun. Don't you know that Cummings is the Typhoid Annie de nos jours? He put literally millions of people at risk by, er driving directly to Durham in his car. Where's your sense of outrage? Get a pitchfork and a burning brand and join the rest of the Remainer Establishment in marching on Downing Street immediately.....
How did you feel at the Londoners decamping to second homes in South Devon at the end of March? Did it matter to you whether they were carrying infection or not?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
There are far better ways of checking out your eyesight, Philip, so it is unfortunate for the defendant that coincidentally it was on his wife's birthday, coincidentally happened to finish up at a local tourist spot and coincidentally they had to get out because someone felt sick.
Unlikely to stand up in a Court of Law, Philip.
Sadly, it is the one aspect of driving that you can safely test without actually driving. If he had said he wasn't 100% about his gear-changing abilities, that would be different because you have to drive to find out, and (icing on the cake) there is not a simple, open and shut, strict liability offence of driving with uncorrected gear changing ability.
What worries me most about all this is the claim that he has a towering intellect compared to the people (like the PM) who surround him.
Well, for some the hatred towards him / Cummings is 100% Brexit, but yes, Tory Bear pointing out all the Remainers on the panel ahead of time, is as I say just "getting excuses in early".
The Cummings saga is not a Brexit issue but Brexit is an available excuse for why people are being mean to Dominic and that excuse seems to be being used (in part) to justify his retention.
It is not a Brexit issue, it is a right or wrong issue.
Two extreme ERG members, Stephen Baker and Laurence Robertson, have both expressed their dissatisfaction over Cummings. There are probably other of a Brexit persuasion who also ain't happy.
Definitely a Brexit issue. Look at Alastair Campbell disobeying the rules today but getting angry at Cummings.
So why are Baker, Robertson and many other strongly pro-Brexit people lining up on the wrong side? I think it is because they think Cummings was wrong. So do I. So do most people, if the polls are anything to go by.
That suggests it's being seen as a right v wrong issue, and I'm sure that's healthy. Viewing it through the prism of Brexit is unhealthy because it trivialises it.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
LOL!
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
I hold no brief for Mr T, but there have been occasions in the past, and no doubt will be again, when I have taken a short trip...... 'round the block' ........ to see how I feel before driving a long distance. Usually with someone with me, although not with a small child in the car.
What were you checking for out of interest?
The last occasion was when I'd had an operation on my back. Could I put my left foot hard down on the clutch. Yes I could, The previous was after I'd had labyrinthitis, which affects the balance. On that occasion I went with a driving instructor who said I was fine.
Thanks. Presumably the clutch conundrum was solved before you started the engine? Quite high stakes exercise, I would have thought although no idea how to address it otherwise.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
When one enters the land of fairytales, it's unwise to presume anything.
But one can only wonder at what the NHS staff were told, if this symptomatic mother and son were left to their own devices when it came to getting home again - someone apparently having to phone round to try to get a taxi, and as no taxis were available the symptomatic father having to break self-isolation to drive out and fetch them.
Scarcely reassuring, if that's standard NHS practice. Scarcely more reassuring if it's all just a pack of lies dreamed up by the Cummings family.
I do rather think that Johnson's lack of clarity isn't so much a tactic to protect Cummings as a symptom of the fact he isn't at all on top of his brief.
He's got no sodding idea what the current rules actually are, and can't answer even Greg Clark's relatively friendly questions in a clear way.
He has never been one for detail, but I think covid is still really effecting him. He can't even do the soft ball questions.
Unless he gets better (or if this is max of Boris abilities now), the men in grey suits will be along next year.
I think that's right. With Cooper's questions, it felt rather strongly as if he didn't want to answer as it would incriminate Cummigs. That may be so, but it's also possible he isn't on top of ANY of it. It's sad to see in many ways, and worrying.
Guidelines are guidelines. Laws are laws. Unless and until the Government passes specific laws with specific penalties for transgressing those laws then all Government guidance is open to interpretation.
Cummings was wrong to do what he did because as someone in a position of authority he should have been leading by example and because in not doing so he has made it seem as if the guidance actually doesn't matter. Of course it does. But the idea that there was no interpretation involved until Cummings performed his idiocy is just humbug.
If there are points at which the Government thinks it really is vital that its guidance is followed - such as the 14 day quarantine for new arrivals - then they should pass it into law. If they chose not to do that then people will indeed interpret it - or just ignore it - because that is the nature of our system of governance and law. If something is not explicitly forbidden then it is allowed.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
Oh, you're no fun. Don't you know that Cummings is the Typhoid Annie de nos jours? He put literally millions of people at risk by, er driving directly to Durham in his car. Where's your sense of outrage? Get a pitchfork and a burning brand and join the rest of the Remainer Establishment in marching on Downing Street immediately.....
To be honest if this becomes an issue again it will only boost government support. Not sure I see No 10s logic here.
"If we're forced to lose Cummings, which a majority of Leavers want, then next we'll be fighting a Brexit extension, which a majority of Leavers are on our side for. Please don't make us move to a fight where public opinion is better for us."
It is quite a bland acknowledgement of reciept of the MPS letter, just saying the door is open until July 1st.
It is quite clear that such a request would require both sides agreement, by implication the government.
I'm not sure what genocide denier you're referring to but yes Theresa May quit so I'm happy. The rest as they say is history.
Comparisons with Germany are insane, this was not a meaningful election to choose a government. It was a protest election to a parliament we are no longer a part of and should have already left before the vote was held. I treated that election with all the dignity it deserved.
Claire Fox. You can read up about Living Marxism, and perhaps reconsider your vote.
Or you can bluster on, and we will all know your true moral character.
I dislike Claire Fox. I don't support her, never have. She holds no elected position in this country and that's in no small part due to my vote and the millions of others who voted like me.
So I'm content with that. I would never vote for Claire Fox to Westminster but thankfully she isn't elected at all today.
Maybe, just maybe, the government looked at the deficit for April and thought, holy shit, we have to stop this before the entire country goes bust. I'd really like to think so. I agree with Alastair that there seems an element of panic about the removal of restrictions now but so there bloody well should be. For me, the issues the government face are the reopening of the economy, the wind down of the excellent furlough scheme, the financial help for particular industries such as the French did yesterday with their car industry, the absolute crisis in our hospitality and tourism industries, the disaster for Universities who have grown fat on far eastern fees, the chronic failure to develop either an App or a method of tracing in the last 2.5 months, the speed with which tests are being turned around, even now the capacity to test, I could go on all day, it is terrifying. Cummings is not even a deckchair on the Titanic which we are arguing about throwing overboard as the iceberg rips an ever bigger hole in the ship of state and the pathetic, irrational, disproportionate and frankly mad obsession with Cummings shows so much of what is wrong with this country today. People should grow up. There is plenty to be angry about, plenty to be genuinely worried about.1 job in Whitehall is not even close to making the list.
Bolded the bit I especially agree with here.
Have you told Johnson?
Exactly DavidL why do you think Boris has the pathetic, irrational, disproportionate and frankly mad obsession with Cummings
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
When one enters the land of fairytales, it's unwise to presume anything.
But one can only wonder at what the NHS staff were told, if this symptomatic mother and son were left to their own devices when it came to getting home again - someone apparently having to phone round to try to get a taxi, and as no taxis were available the symptomatic father having to break self-isolation to drive out and fetch them.
Scarcely reassuring, if that's standard NHS practice. Scarcely more reassuring if it's all just a pack of lies dreamed up by the Cummings family.
My money's on 'pack of lies' but then I gave up on the guy when he spun us the Castle fairy story.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
There was childcare! The father was capable of a 350 mile drive without a stop. I dont think Id think that was safe at any time let alone driving a stressed family after an extremely stressful week at work. He must have been in excellent health and fresh.
Of course he could look after his child. They have family in London and are rich enough it would be trivial to arrange childcare at short notice if needed.
Has there been a single child in the country who has had a serious accident because their parents had covid?
At best he acted on irrational fear. Far more likely natural selfishness.
In a nutshell we were all asked to make sacrifices for the sake of everyone else, Cummings said sod that I'm doing what's best for me. That is why he is being hammered
If there are points at which the Government thinks it really is vital that its guidance is followed - such as the 14 day quarantine for new arrivals - then they should pass it into law. If they chose not to do that then people will indeed interpret it - or just ignore it - because that is the nature of our system of governance and law. If something is not explicitly forbidden then it is allowed.
Well, it certainly is now. We’ve gone from being the Germans to being the French, with a side order of Derbyshire police being the Russians, all in a few weeks due to the PM’s frankly slightly worrying dependency on one person.
(For the avoidance of doubt, that is a reference to his fine old Soviet joke:
In America everything is permitted, except what is prohibited. In Germany everything is prohibited, except what is permitted. In France everything is permitted, even when it is prohibited. In Russia everything is prohibited, even when it is permitted.)
Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
Independence day!
I'm surprised pubs are opening on a Saturday. I would have expected a Monday would be better to ensure everything is working. However I'm sure the breweries and councils will send people round to check the correct measures are in place.
If it’s guidance with no legal status what business is it of councils?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
I tried to do the same the other day too. Only @DavidL has bitten.
We’ll just have to keep plugging away!
Lockdown is now breaking down in a chaotic manner. It is obvious that the government is not in control of events any more.
Might as well be a free for all now. the devil take the hindmost.
Quick poll of Cummings supporters. Do any of you believe his story about testing his eyes? Want to know whether we're dealing with idiots or hacks. Thanks.
Comments
And of course, that's assuming that the current version of the risible and ever-changing story put forward by the pair is the gospel truth, which seems implausible.
point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
LOL
Unlikely to stand up in a Court of Law, Philip.
This may well be a big story in the next six months
Wasn't that the whole purpose of being in Durham in the first place?
Two extreme ERG members, Stephen Baker and Laurence Robertson, have both expressed their dissatisfaction over Cummings. There are probably other of a Brexit persuasion who also ain't happy.
I hope he's paraphrasing and the actual level will be a decision of SAGE but I have my doubts.
Mr Byford, 54, who was previously president and chief executive officer of New York City Transit Authority, will begin his role on 29 June.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52818828
There are a few hotspots that emerge but with good tracking and tracing that is all that they become.
Whether any of the 4 countries of the UK will have good tracking and tracing and whether the public will play their part is open to debate but the reality is there is only really one way to find out.
Going for a drive doesn't mean you have to get out and go for a walk half way through the end of the drive (when you were supposed to remain local). Every time I've taken the car out for a run (you have to, to ensure the battery doesn't drain fully and brakes don't seize up) it's been from home, drive around a bit and then straight back home.
But I know that nothing anyone says will change your viewpoint that your personal desires trumps protecting the rest of the population.
As for your comparison to the papers, sorry but it simply does not work. Firstly, it's their job to report things like this. And secondly, how could they know that rather than protect the government's messaging by demanding an apology from DC for his rule breaking, Johnson would choose instead to praise him. "He acted as he saw fit as a husband and father. I will not mark him down for that." Nobody - not even you - could have seen that cumming.
@DublinAirport
·
1h
Apparently, the pilot is testing his eyesight just to make sure he’ll be ok for a transatlantic flight in a day or two. Sorry, that’s obviously not the case. It’s collecting information for a mapping software company.
Seems there is sod all lockdown in my local few streets today. Road very busy. Tons of people coming and going to each other's houses, families popping in, chatting in the gardens, smell of a barbeque as we get into early evening.
Or you can bluster on, and we will all know your true moral character.
"If we're forced to lose Cummings, which a majority of Leavers want, then next we'll be fighting a Brexit extension, which a majority of Leavers are on our side for. Please don't make us move to a fight where public opinion is better for us."
Now can hardly answer question on Track n'Trace quarantine contact is compulsory or voluntary.
Depends how angry they are.
FFS Johnson get a grip. For many businesses this is vital. Make a decision.
I tried to do the same the other day too. Only @DavidL has bitten.
We’ll just have to keep plugging away!
Have you told Johnson?
He's got no sodding idea what the current rules actually are, and can't answer even Greg Clark's relatively friendly questions in a clear way.
Embarrassing.
1) you created the rules so they don't apply to you (only everyone else)
2) your personal judgement is that you would prefer to be somewhere nicer..
Unless he gets better (or if this is max of Boris abilities now), the men in grey suits will be along next year.
NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law)
I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
What worries me most about all this is the claim that he has a towering intellect compared to the people (like the PM) who surround him.
That suggests it's being seen as a right v wrong issue, and I'm sure that's healthy. Viewing it through the prism of Brexit is unhealthy because it trivialises it.
But one can only wonder at what the NHS staff were told, if this symptomatic mother and son were left to their own devices when it came to getting home again - someone apparently having to phone round to try to get a taxi, and as no taxis were available the symptomatic father having to break self-isolation to drive out and fetch them.
Scarcely reassuring, if that's standard NHS practice. Scarcely more reassuring if it's all just a pack of lies dreamed up by the Cummings family.
https://twitter.com/bbcnewspr/status/1265666465308573696?s=21
But Alastair's piece is just so much poppycock.
Guidelines are guidelines. Laws are laws. Unless and until the Government passes specific laws with specific penalties for transgressing those laws then all Government guidance is open to interpretation.
Cummings was wrong to do what he did because as someone in a position of authority he should have been leading by example and because in not doing so he has made it seem as if the guidance actually doesn't matter. Of course it does. But the idea that there was no interpretation involved until Cummings performed his idiocy is just humbug.
If there are points at which the Government thinks it really is vital that its guidance is followed - such as the 14 day quarantine for new arrivals - then they should pass it into law. If they chose not to do that then people will indeed interpret it - or just ignore it - because that is the nature of our system of governance and law. If something is not explicitly forbidden then it is allowed.
I expect post a likely no deal at the end of the year he may well stand down
It is quite clear that such a request would require both sides agreement, by implication the government.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265649545410744321?s=20
So I'm content with that. I would never vote for Claire Fox to Westminster but thankfully she isn't elected at all today.
The Welsh Tunbridge Wells?
In a nutshell we were all asked to make sacrifices for the sake of everyone else, Cummings said sod that I'm doing what's best for me. That is why he is being hammered
Replies are something else...
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1265666465308573696?s=20
Outrageous !
(For the avoidance of doubt, that is a reference to his fine old Soviet joke:
In America everything is permitted, except what is prohibited.
In Germany everything is prohibited, except what is permitted.
In France everything is permitted, even when it is prohibited.
In Russia everything is prohibited, even when it is permitted.)
But not in a good way.
Might as well be a free for all now. the devil take the hindmost.