One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
It doesn't. The listed examples are 'certain' as reasonable excuses. But anything can qualify. It'a matter for a court to decide. The text is clear.
Unbelievable, this is the guy in charge of public health and he is saying it's ok for people with the virus to drive around the country. They will stop at nothing to protect their own.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
It doesn't. Doug doesn't understand the law.
I've worked that out :-)
He also seems to miss the fact that although the CPS can prosecute, this is essentially a fixed penalty offence.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
It doesn't limit it, but its not listed there, and an obvious question that goes to his“reasonable excuse” defence is "were there no reasonable alternative child care arrangements rather closer to home?"
As George Peretz said, the obvious question for prosecution counsel would be: “if this was reasonable, and given your prominent role, why didn’t you open up about it before being forced to?” If the excuse is not found to be “reasonable”, and govt advice emphasised the role of social services if alternate childcare arrangements could not be found, then he contravened regulation 6 and committed an offence under regulation 9(1)(b).
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
It is, as I noted earlier, potentially really important. It's hard to imagine travelling that length of time with a small child without stopping. But if they did...
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons.
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term.
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive.
So besides the fact his reason is included and that it wouldn't matter if it wasn't so long as it was reasonable . . .
According to Cummings wife he was so ill he could barely stand up but he was okay to ferry his kid 250 miles to his parents .
Her article also amazingly didn’t mention the Durham trip !
Did he actually have it? When the COVID thing kicked off, for the first time in years the news wasn't all about Brexit and Dom's evil genius. Did he feign illness because we felt unloved and wanted attention?
He was widely reported in the press on 30 March as self-isolating and this trip allegedly took place on the 31st.
Must be weird to spend your whole Saturday on here spinning for Dom. Impressive in a way.
We know full well they’d be doing the opposite it it was a Labour person. Of course when the Tories are attacked, trust PB to rally around with whatever nonsense excuse is invented. Some of them doubtless believe it, others just do it out of loyalty.
Of course they pretend to be impartial. That is what makes me laugh.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
It doesn't. The listed examples are 'certain' as reasonable excuses. But anything can qualify. It'a matter for a court to decide. The text is clear.
Doesn't need a court to decide. If Police think the reason is reasonable they have no reason to pass it to CPS. If CPS think it is reasonable they have no reason to take it to court.
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
It doesn't. Doug doesn't understand the law.
And you don't understand what a law is.
It doesn't limit it, but its not listed there, and an obvious question that goes to his“reasonable excuse” defence is "were there no reasonable alternative child care arrangements rather closer to home?"
As George Peretz said, the obvious question for prosecution counsel would be: “if this was reasonable, and given your prominent role, why didn’t you open up about it before being forced to?” If the excuse is not found to be “reasonable”, and govt advice emphasised the role of social services if alternate childcare arrangements could not be found, then he contravened regulation 6 and committed an offence under regulation 9(1)(b).
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Some people didn't have the choice.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
How on earth that does that sentence limit a reasonable excuse to the examples that follow?
It doesn't. The listed examples are 'certain' as reasonable excuses. But anything can qualify. It'a matter for a court to decide. The text is clear.
Doesn't need a court to decide. If Police think the reason is reasonable they have no reason to pass it to CPS. If CPS think it is reasonable they have no reason to take it to court.
Then maybe we should crowdfund a private prosecution.
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
People were self isolating and not going to see parents who were dieing not because of the risk of being put in jail but because they were told this sacrifice was worth it to save the lives of others.
There is a moral black hole at the heart of downing Street.
"People were self isolating and not going to see parents who were dieing not because of the risk of being put in jail but because they were told this sacrifice was worth it to save the lives of others."
I can't imagine anything could persuade me not to see them one last time, certainly not the current situation. Wouldn't require a moments thought.
Each to their own.
People have been excluded from dying relatives in hospital. Whether that was a clinical decision or an application of The Rules I can't say, but given the choice of blaming Our NHS or the government, guess which way people are likely to break.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons.
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term.
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive.
So besides the fact his reason is included and that it wouldn't matter if it wasn't so long as it was reasonable . . .
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons. - no it doesn't
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term. - citation?
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive. - true but I have dealt with this point up thread.
The Tories have all been given the same line to Tweet then. They have very few original thoughts between them.
That is a preposterously stupid comment. You don't think Labour or the LD's or any other party don't have Managers texting their MP's telling them what the line to take is?
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
My car can go further than that on a full tank.
I have done Inverness to Tavistock on one tank in an unmodded Vauxhall Astra. Prob wouldn't work in the other direction.
Cummings runs the UK government and his cabinet is not going to call for his exit. Medium-term, this should be good for the opposition to face a leader who is both incompetent and hypocritical.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons.
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term.
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive.
So besides the fact his reason is included and that it wouldn't matter if it wasn't so long as it was reasonable . . .
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons. - no it doesn't
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term. - citation?
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive. - true but I have dealt with this point up thread.
It does.
As I keep saying to you and you keep ignoring one of the reasons is to avoid harm.
Leaving a three year old without adult supervision is harmful.
Or do you think leaving a three year old without supervision isn't harmful?
Some of those playing to the ambiguity of what was and wasn't allowed (to get Dom off the hook for transporting this virus halfway across the country) are in many cases the same people denying any possibility of 'confusion' around the Government's message in recent weeks.
Its obvious Cummings should go on principle - but how is him staying not harmful to the national response to a public health crisis. Is the benefit of his genius worth that cost?
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
If that is the case, what was his motive in going to Durham?
Because that was his preference so he decided it was fine him to ignore the quarantine regulations. They are just for the little people.
It may be worth noticing that Matt Hancock's tweet in support of DC is carefully nuanced: "It was entirely right for DC to find childcare" is the fairly uncontroversial message. Which gives him loads of wriggle room and is well short of full throated backing.
Gove ditto: "Caring for wife and child is not a crime". Indeed so say all of us.
How many of them are sitting on the fence at the moment?
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
My car can go further than that on a full tank.
It's probably a five hour drive. He had a three year old in the back. Of course he had to stop.
The Tories have all been given the same line to Tweet then. They have very few original thoughts between them.
That is a preposterously stupid comment. You don't think Labour or the LD's or any other party don't have Managers texting their MP's telling them what the line to take is?
You should get some lines to take, would improve the quality of your contributions.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Maybe he’ll be next up after Eadric explaining that while advocating a Chinese style hard lockdown for the rest of us, he was illegally travelling to an illegally rented bolt hole in South Wales.
The reason he might survive is because this row he devolved into Remain versus Leave. Because the Remainers hate Cummings so much, their attacks are drenched in Remainery hysteria, like a kind of ectoplasm.
It is overdone and it has inspired Leavers to defend Cummings.
It is depressing how polarized we are.
Same with Lockdown, Leavers are more likely to support the Government in gradually opening up again, Remainers want to stick to a strict lockdown.
Leavers if course want to end the transition period in December, Remainers want to extend the transition period.
Support for Boris, Cummings and the Government and divisions on all major issues are now seem through the prism of Brexit. The replacement of May by the Leaver Boris and Corbyn by the Remainer Starmer had just increased the Brexit polarisation
Am I right in thinking that the Cum Dog line now is that they made the journey because only his wife had symptoms? How the hell does 'cos of child care concerns' line apply if only one of them was ill? Is Dom incapable of opening a yoghurt or finding CBeebies?
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
My car can go further than that on a full tank.
It's probably a five hour drive. He had a three year old in the back. Of course he had to stop.
The child could have easily have slept throughout the journey.
1Adur 2Broxbourne 3Chichester 4City of London 5East Hertfordshire 6Epsom and Ewell 7Harlow 8Havant 9Horsham 10Islington 11Malvern Hills 12North Kesteven 13Rochford 14South Hams (10 days with no new cases) 15Sutton 16Torbay 17Uttlesford 18West Devon (10 days with no new cases) 19West Lindsey 20Worthing 21Wychavon
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons.
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term.
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive.
So besides the fact his reason is included and that it wouldn't matter if it wasn't so long as it was reasonable . . .
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons. - no it doesn't
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term. - citation?
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive. - true but I have dealt with this point up thread.
It does.
As I keep saying to you and you keep ignoring one of the reasons is to avoid harm.
Leaving a three year old without adult supervision is harmful.
Or do you think leaving a three year old without supervision isn't harmful?
If we get to decide what's harmful without anyone asking, doesn't lockdown mean do what you feel like?
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
My car can go further than that on a full tank.
It's probably a five hour drive. He had a three year old in the back. Of course he had to stop.
Three year old couldn't pee behind a bush along the way? What I'd do in that circumstance.
Good old Brendan. But he really needs to let go of this Brexit thing. Remainers now regard it as fait accompli and care only for the good of the present and the potential of the future. To keep dragging it up, as Brendan does, as a clumsy means to get his political heroes off the hook just sounds tired.
This is an order of magnitude worse than Ferguson & Calderwood. Driving 350 miles whilst you've either got or could be carrying (Due to his wife) the virus. It's not only breaking the rules, it's breaking the rules for the precise medical reason the rules were put in place ! Even with no lockdown, only the thickest or most arrogant would embark on a 350 mile trip for any reason whatsoever if there was a good chance they had the virus. Dom isn't thick, but he treats us all for fools and the Gov't is diminished every minute it tries to defend such vanity.
Ferguson was about having an affair. Dom was about looking after children.
Caring for children trumps having an affair. Caring for children isn't illegal.
Consenting adults can do what they like in this country Phil, here's a clue - the lockdown is for medical and not moral reasons. Unless you want a morality police ?
Indeed but it's not about morality, having an affair isn't a reasonable excuse. Caring for children is.
Bingo! You have just illustrated why the government's communication on this - guidelines/laws/rules - has been so shocking.
All this "just use common sense how hard can it be" guff results in exactly this. Everyone determining what reasonable means.
I believe in treating people like adults....
You must be rather disappointed in this government, then.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons.
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term.
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive.
So besides the fact his reason is included and that it wouldn't matter if it wasn't so long as it was reasonable . . .
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons. - no it doesn't
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term. - citation?
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive. - true but I have dealt with this point up thread.
It does.
As I keep saying to you and you keep ignoring one of the reasons is to avoid harm.
Leaving a three year old without adult supervision is harmful.
Or do you think leaving a three year old without supervision isn't harmful?
This is painful.
As I keep telling you, reg 6(2)(m) doesn't help him. You must "need" (i.e.circumstances in which something is necessary) to travel to avoid harm (start of the relevant section) to have a defence under that section and, because there were childcare alternatives place in London, up to and including social services, there was no "need" for him to travel to avoid harm to his kids.
And that is before we get onto the question of whether his symptoms were severe enough to preclude childcare which, it seems, they were not. Plenty of couples nationwide have managed childcare while suffering from C19 and they were not able to dance to ABBA.
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
My car can go further than that on a full tank.
It's probably a five hour drive. He had a three year old in the back. Of course he had to stop.
The roads were empty, I doubt it took 5h, but I agree with the point. This is what gets him IMO if they can't adequately answer whether he came into contact with anyone on the way or if he went to a services cafe then he's done.
Am I right in thinking that the Cum Dog line now is that they made the journey because only his wife had symptoms? How the hell does 'cos of child care concerns' line apply if only one of them was ill? Is Dom incapable of opening a yoghurt or finding CBeebies?
He had Schroedinger's virus: he was so sick he had to get childcare in contravention of the government rules that he helped to draw up, but at the same time, he was well so he had no problem driving 300 miles and posed no threat to anybody unfortunate enough to have crossed his path on his journey. Alternative explanation: rules are for the little people and the government thinks we're all total fucking mugs.
Prediction. The Mirror will doorstep the parents. Cue horrified outrage about going too far and dragging innocent people into a story.
That will be used to shut this down.
I'm sure certain people will rush to defend that course of action, after all isn't doorstepping perfectly legal when there is a legitimate story to be had, public interest and all that ? Free press ?
On the "non-stop trip" thing, I don't think Cummings or Number 10 have yet claimed that he didn't stop. They have been silent on it.
That tells its own story. If he really hadn't stopped, that's an easy point to make by his defenders. The fact they are silent suggests he did stop but they are waiting to see if evidence emerges on the specifics.
Amusing that the usual fanboys are on here defending a case that I don't actually think Cummings is making.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons.
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term.
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive.
So besides the fact his reason is included and that it wouldn't matter if it wasn't so long as it was reasonable . . .
Except his reason does meet at least one of the reasons. - no it doesn't
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term. - citation?
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive. - true but I have dealt with this point up thread.
It does.
As I keep saying to you and you keep ignoring one of the reasons is to avoid harm.
Leaving a three year old without adult supervision is harmful.
Or do you think leaving a three year old without supervision isn't harmful?
This is painful.
As I keep telling you, reg 6(2)(m) doesn't help him. You must "need" (i.e.circumstances in which something is necessary) to travel to avoid harm (start of the relevant section) to have a defence under that section and, because there were childcare alternatives place in London, up to and including social services, there was no "need" for him to travel to avoid harm to his kids.
And that is before we get onto the question of whether his symptoms were severe enough to preclude childcare which, it seems, they were not. Plenty of couples nationwide have managed childcare while suffering from C19 and they were not able to dance to ABBA.
I wait for you to move the goalposts again.
You're wrong. You're making shit up and getting it backwards.
Social services are a last resort if you don't have access to family. He did. And if you're able to leave the home to avoid harm there's no limit on how far you travel to get somewhere safe with family. Just the requirements to have a need which he did.
That you think people should go to social services for children before family is insane.
I do not think that Cummings will go. The rules were not made for people like him. Politically, I imagine that, whatever they say in public, the opposition parties will want him to stay in place. He tells us a lot about the Prime Minister and the more that people know he exists the better.
Am I right in thinking that the Cum Dog line now is that they made the journey because only his wife had symptoms? How the hell does 'cos of child care concerns' line apply if only one of them was ill? Is Dom incapable of opening a yoghurt or finding CBeebies?
He had Schroedinger's virus: he was so sick he had to get childcare in contravention of the government rules that he helped to draw up, but at the same time, he was well so he had no problem driving 300 miles and posed no threat to anybody unfortunate enough to have crossed his path on his journey. Alternative explanation: rules are for the little people and the government thinks we're all total fucking mugs.
A lot of the people here certainly seem to be mugs who would swallow any load of old tosh that coincides with their political sympathies.
I do not think that Cummings will go. The rules were not made for people like him. Politically, I imagine that, whatever they say in public, the opposition parties will want him to stay in place. He tells us a lot about the Prime Minister and the more that people know he exists the better.
Unless the Guardian has a in the back pocket follow up to expose a lie in his story why is he going to walk now?
Free money.
The usual tactic in these takedowns is for the paper to hold something in reserve, so that if the victim survives the first punch, the following uppercut is fatal.
We’ll see.
I mean, big Dom had already contradicted himself between what he told Laura last night and the official government line this morning so what catching him in a lie would involve now is a bit of a mystery.
I do not think that Cummings will go. The rules were not made for people like him. Politically, I imagine that, whatever they say in public, the opposition parties will want him to stay in place. He tells us a lot about the Prime Minister and the more that people know he exists the better.
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
My car can go further than that on a full tank.
It's probably a five hour drive. He had a three year old in the back. Of course he had to stop.
Three year old couldn't pee behind a bush along the way? What I'd do in that circumstance.
On the M1? And what if the kid needed a shite? I bet they stopped at a service station. But you'll come up with an excuse for that too. He could have stopped off to piss on your bed and you'd still be telling us he'd done nothing wrong.
1Adur 2Broxbourne 3Chichester 4City of London 5East Hertfordshire 6Epsom and Ewell 7Harlow 8Havant 9Horsham 10Islington 11Malvern Hills 12North Kesteven 13Rochford 14South Hams (10 days with no new cases) 15Sutton 16Torbay 17Uttlesford 18West Devon (10 days with no new cases) 19West Lindsey 20Worthing 21Wychavon
Islington is the most surprising but interesting to see Torbay and other Devon areas - wasn't that a hotspot at the beginning ?
My own view:
Somewhere approaching half the population has some sort of immunity or resistance (perhaps arising from recent exposure to other Coronaviruses such as the common cold). Hence why half those in that ski chalet and half those on the Princess cruise ship walked away uninfected, despite repeated exposure to the virus over an extended period during which no special precautions were being taken.
Of the remaining half, in hotspots such as London (and earlier China, Iran, Lombardy), sufficient - studies are suggesting up to 20% - were infected that, combined with those already with immunity/resistance - the critical herd immunity level of 70% has been achieved.
Hence why infection rates in the early epicentres such as China and Iran have dropped away so quickly, without any social media videos emerging of people dropping dead in the streets.
Hence why new infections in London having dropped away faster than the rest of the UK despite tons of evidence that the lockdown in the capital has been less effective than elsewhere.
So we are now in the phase when the virus has essentially burned out, and releasing us quickly from lockdown should make sense.
This would lead to a short term uptick in new cases, but well within the scope of the NHS to cope. After that, we are in the clear so as long as immunity to the new virus lasts - if this proves to be time limited we’ll be facing a new wave of infections in the medium term, whatever we do now.
Unfortunately we have a government that has been slow to learn from the emerging picture from the data it has been gathering, both initially and right now.
Interesting listening to new angles on the Cummings story being discovered on the news on the Beeb (R4).
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
Would be difficult not to, he'd need to fill up petrol, even with minimal stops there would still be huge risk of contact with other people. If there was then he's got to go IMO.
My car can go further than that on a full tank.
It's probably a five hour drive. He had a three year old in the back. Of course he had to stop.
Three year old couldn't pee behind a bush along the way? What I'd do in that circumstance.
I do this trip at least twice a year. Which bush alongside the M1/A1M are you talking about? To have a pee you have to go into one of the service stations.
I do not think that Cummings will go. The rules were not made for people like him. Politically, I imagine that, whatever they say in public, the opposition parties will want him to stay in place. He tells us a lot about the Prime Minister and the more that people know he exists the better.
Yes of course, telling your political opponents to get stuffed with their whining is so weak...
That's what Jeremy Corbyn did with all those political opponents with their whining about anti-semitism, of course, and that is why he is PM today.
When you find yourself having to equate a drive to protect your children with years of institutional antisemitism to make your case, you know it's a little lacking in coherence.
Facing down your opponents' wrath is strength whichever way you slice it, and a large chunk of the electorate will always respond well to strength. There's no point in showing weakness no matter what the pettifogging details of tomorrow's fish-wrappings may be.
1Adur 2Broxbourne 3Chichester 4City of London 5East Hertfordshire 6Epsom and Ewell 7Harlow 8Havant 9Horsham 10Islington 11Malvern Hills 12North Kesteven 13Rochford 14South Hams (10 days with no new cases) 15Sutton 16Torbay 17Uttlesford 18West Devon (10 days with no new cases) 19West Lindsey 20Worthing 21Wychavon
Islington is the most surprising but interesting to see Torbay and other Devon areas - wasn't that a hotspot at the beginning ?
My own view:
Somewhere approaching half the population has some sort of immunity or resistance (perhaps arising from recent exposure to other Coronaviruses such as the common cold). Hence why half those in that ski chalet and half those on the Princess cruise ship walked away uninfected, despite repeated exposure to the virus over an extended period during which no special precautions were being taken.
Of the remaining half, in hotspots such as London (and earlier China, Iran, Lombardy), sufficient - studies are suggesting up to 20% - were infected that, combined with those already with immunity/resistance - the critical herd immunity level of 70% has been achieved.
Hence why infection rates in the early epicentres such as China and Iran have dropped away so quickly, without any social media videos emerging of people dropping dead in the streets.
Hence why new infections in London having dropped away faster than the rest of the UK despite tons of evidence that the lockdown in the capital has been less effective than elsewhere.
So we are now in the phase when the virus has essentially burned out, and releasing us quickly from lockdown should make sense.
This would lead to a short term uptick in new cases, but well within the scope of the NHS to cope. After that, we are in the clear so as long as immunity to the new virus lasts - if this proves to be time limited we’ll be facing a new wave of infections in the medium term, whatever we do now.
Unfortunately we have a government that has been slow to learn from the emerging picture from the data it has been gathering, both initially and right now.
In particular if new infections are concentrated among the young and healthy.
It would good to have an age breakdown of those people now being infected.
To be fair that’s exactly what @Philip_Thompson is saying. I guess the guidance must not have been clear, despite his assertions for weeks, as everyone is very confused.
Indeed PT is going further, by not "thinking ahead" parents who obeyed the quarantine without travelling to stay with relatives were reckless putting their childrens lives in mortal danger.
If cummings and his wife were seriously ill, and could not look after their child, then who should have?
Social services?
I doubt there is a single person who actually believes that someone in as privileged a position as Cummings couldn't have sorted out his kids needs in London if he had wanted to. It's laughable.
I have a hunch that a daughter of a baronet and the commissioning editor of the Spectator, never mind the Prime Minister's chief advisor and nephew of a judge, could find someone able to help out in London if absolutely necessary.
So you've got no qualms with seeking help in these circumstances then?
Your complaint is he sought help from family rather than others?
At the moment I'm still trying to establish what happened. Those government ministers queuing up to defend him better be very sure of their ground and I don't see how they can be.
Was Dominic so ill that he couldnt look after a child or did he drive 250 miles to dump his child on others? Because both is not a viable answer.
Both is viable if he hadn't deteriorated yet but was facing it.
If he was well enough to drive, he was well enough to look after his child. He's not a doctor and had no way of knowing whether he would deteriorate. Oh, and we have two conflicting accounts of how his illness in fact progressed (was he confined to bed for ten days, was he dancing to ABBA?), so that's one more mystery to be cleared up.
Also was his wife in a coma given she was with him, did he have to carry her into the car prostrate.
O/T but afternoon Malky, this is just to ask if you have seen this?
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Maybe he’ll be next up after Eadric explaining that while advocating a Chinese style hard lockdown for the rest of us, he was illegally travelling to an illegally rented bolt hole in South Wales.
Unfortunately for you I left London before lockdown. Because, unlike you, I saw corona coming
Renting accommodation away from home became illegal irrespective of when you made the booking.
Your assertion that your foresight was greater than mine won’t survive even a cursory review of PB archives during February and March. Most of what you posted here back then has subsequently proved to be hyperbolic nonsense.
Not surprised to see the PB Tories verbatim following the CCHQ line.
I said what I was saying last night BEFORE there was "a line".
If it wasn’t a Tory person being defended you’d be calling for their resignation.
I'd never criticise a parent for looking after a three year old. To do so is reprehensible.
Trying to make this about a 3 year old being in mortal danger is truly despicable.
The child was never in any danger at all and if at any time it became so there were numerous solutions that did not involve breaking quarantine regulations and driving 250 miles.
I do not think that Cummings will go. The rules were not made for people like him. Politically, I imagine that, whatever they say in public, the opposition parties will want him to stay in place. He tells us a lot about the Prime Minister and the more that people know he exists the better.
Yes of course, telling your political opponents to get stuffed with their whining is so weak...
That's what Jeremy Corbyn did with all those political opponents with their whining about anti-semitism, of course, and that is why he is PM today.
When you find yourself having to equate a drive to protect your children with years of institutional antisemitism to make your case, you know it's a little lacking in coherence.
Facing down your opponents' wrath is strength whichever way you slice it, and a large chunk of the electorate will always respond well to strength. There's no point in showing weakness no matter what the pettifogging details of tomorrow's fish-wrappings may be.
No - my point is that defending the indefensible isn't strength.
You think Cummings behaviour is defensible, just as Corbynistas thought Corbyn's response to antisemitism was defensible.
The big thing here is that the government has effectively announced that the laws were for little people (and that the entire commentariat are little people).
What law was broken? Maybe let the Police know a law was broken. Oh and the DCMO.
If you're claiming having an unsupervised three year old isn't harmful then you're deranged.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the manner in which they arranged for supervision of their three year old is far more harmful. Far better for them to call social services if that was the issue. They could have killed someone through infection. They could have killed me if I had run into them and become infected. Or are you saying I should prioretise a stranger's kid over my own life?
And the excuse they gave is not one of the permissable reasons. You might disagree with the law, plenty do, but he broke it - whatever some plod in Durham says.
If I and my wife were ill I'd get my family to take care of them not social services.
He didn't break the law. You can leave if you have a reasonable reason. He did.
He broke the law. The "reasonable excuse" defences are listed in Regulation 6(2) of the Covid Regs. His actions satisfy none of them. He can plead to the contrary but it should be before a court who are the final arbiters of law in this country. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to fear. As it is, even a cursory reading of Regulation 6, proves he did.
What court? On what charge? He's meant to present himself in court spontaneously, force them to try him, then defend himself against a non-existent charge just to satisfy the political opponents who hate him?
That's utterly bonkers.
He should be prosecuted before a magistrates court, like many will be who have done less, under regulation 9(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 for a breach of regulation 6 of the same statute. If convicted, he should be fined like everyone else.
We are all supposed to be equal before the law in this country and given his excuse is not listed as a "reasonable" one in regulation 6(2) he needs to be forced, by the CPS, to justify why what he did was reasonable, rather than arranging for his children to be taken in by friends, or not dancing to ABBA..
There's a clear case here that he has committed a criminal offence and a court needs to decide if that is right. If your excuse for being out and about is not one listed in the regulations, and you have symptoms of the virus, then there's enough to prosecute and let a mags court decide.
EDIT - 9(1) - sorry
Maybe he’ll be next up after Eadric explaining that while advocating a Chinese style hard lockdown for the rest of us, he was illegally travelling to an illegally rented bolt hole in South Wales.
Unfortunately for you I left London before lockdown. Because, unlike you, I saw corona coming
Renting accommodation away from home became illegal irrespective of when you made the booking.
Your assertion that your foresight was greater than mine won’t survive even a cursory review of PB archives during February and March. Most of what you posted here back then has subsequently proved to be hyperbolic nonsense.
Again, you’re wrong. I was given the flat by a wealthy friend. You’re just embarrassing yourself now
You are welcome to examine the ‘stay at home’ regulations and explain how driving across the country to stay at a flat of a wealthy friend hundred of miles away from your actual home in any way complies....
That you have sought to advocate restrictions for the rest of us while taking the p**s yourself speaks volumes.
Driving into Wales to stay away from home is illegal even now.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
I see we can now add 'folk don't love their parents enough to break the law' to 'folk don't love their kids enough to break the law'.
Just not enough loving lawbreaking in this country.
I am certainly guilty of loving my parents more than the I do the lockdown law, that is true
In the same way some folk love starting fires more than they love the laws on arson.
Sorry to be flippant, but the implication of your statement that law-abiding people are somehow in the wrong for not loving their parents enough sticks in the throat. Plenty of people have made sacrifices for what they are told is the greater good of the community and because it's the law, and to be told they don't love their families enough by you is unpleasant.
1Adur 2Broxbourne 3Chichester 4City of London 5East Hertfordshire 6Epsom and Ewell 7Harlow 8Havant 9Horsham 10Islington 11Malvern Hills 12North Kesteven 13Rochford 14South Hams (10 days with no new cases) 15Sutton 16Torbay 17Uttlesford 18West Devon (10 days with no new cases) 19West Lindsey 20Worthing 21Wychavon
Islington is the most surprising but interesting to see Torbay and other Devon areas - wasn't that a hotspot at the beginning ?
I think there was a party returning from a school trip to Italy in the early days. This helped boost the figures there. But the Devon authorities managed to close that line off.
1Adur 2Broxbourne 3Chichester 4City of London 5East Hertfordshire 6Epsom and Ewell 7Harlow 8Havant 9Horsham 10Islington 11Malvern Hills 12North Kesteven 13Rochford 14South Hams (10 days with no new cases) 15Sutton 16Torbay 17Uttlesford 18West Devon (10 days with no new cases) 19West Lindsey 20Worthing 21Wychavon
Islington is the most surprising but interesting to see Torbay and other Devon areas - wasn't that a hotspot at the beginning ?
My own view:
Somewhere approaching half the population has some sort of immunity or resistance (perhaps arising from recent exposure to other Coronaviruses such as the common cold). Hence why half those in that ski chalet and half those on the Princess cruise ship walked away uninfected, despite repeated exposure to the virus over an extended period during which no special precautions were being taken.
Of the remaining half, in hotspots such as London (and earlier China, Iran, Lombardy), sufficient - studies are suggesting up to 20% - were infected that, combined with those already with immunity/resistance - the critical herd immunity level of 70% has been achieved.
The suggestion that the infection stopped in China because herd immunity had been reached is about the silliest thing I've heard in my whole life.
I see the government's line to take (possibly stipulated by the man himself) is that Dom 'Super Dad' Cummings is in fact a parental role model whose behaviour should be praised to the skies.
One thing that I really cant have about this - people saying thing to the effect of
"My Dad was dying but I didn't go and see him, yet the elite are going to their second homes..."
I am sorry for anyones loss, but if my Dad was dying, I would go and see him one last time even if it meant getting put in prison afterwards, which would not be the consequence of doing so in the UK during the lockdown anyway. Why would you not?
Indeed. I am probably being far too cynical, but I catch myself reading 'I haven't been to see my 87 year old father who has mild dementia and lives 50 miles away since this started' with a bit of an inward eye roll. I wonder just how many visits some of those oldies got *before* Covid-19.
I'm struggling to see what's in this story. To me Cummings has been a bit off his oats with coronavirus (even before he caught it), but clearly the Government's enemies must hold him in far higher esteem than I do, given the foam flecked desperation to see him removed.
Hypocrisy stinks is the story, and it does.
I didn't think the Scottish CMO should be fired for visiting her second home, so it would be inconsistent to get het up about Cummings.
Either way is bad for the government really; they are bound to lose votes due to his actions here, but if he is so great at strategy , and he did help Leave win and get Boris an 80 seat majority, then losing him might lose more, I guess thats what they have to weigh up.
I do not think that Cummings will go. The rules were not made for people like him. Politically, I imagine that, whatever they say in public, the opposition parties will want him to stay in place. He tells us a lot about the Prime Minister and the more that people know he exists the better.
Yes of course, telling your political opponents to get stuffed with their whining is so weak...
That's what Jeremy Corbyn did with all those political opponents with their whining about anti-semitism, of course, and that is why he is PM today.
When you find yourself having to equate a drive to protect your children with years of institutional antisemitism to make your case, you know it's a little lacking in coherence.
Facing down your opponents' wrath is strength whichever way you slice it, and a large chunk of the electorate will always respond well to strength. There's no point in showing weakness no matter what the pettifogging details of tomorrow's fish-wrappings may be.
No - my point is that defending the indefensible isn't strength.
You think Cummings behaviour is defensible, just as Corbynistas thought Corbyn's response to antisemitism was defensible.
They were wrong then. You are wrong now.
To be more precise, I don't particularly care whether it was 'defensible' in the eyes of some Twitter lawyers or not, I care about the political consequences of giving in unnecessarily.
And after all, this is politicalbetting.com, not boringmoralizingbetting.com or legalisticnitpickingbetting.com
Comments
"He travelled 260 miles to Durham. It is not known whether they stopped at any Motorway Services."
The bell tolls...
He also seems to miss the fact that although the CPS can prosecute, this is essentially a fixed penalty offence.
Two down - one to go.
As George Peretz said, the obvious question for prosecution counsel would be: “if this was reasonable, and given your prominent role, why didn’t you open up about it before being forced to?” If the excuse is not found to be “reasonable”, and govt advice emphasised the role of social services if alternate childcare arrangements could not be found, then he contravened regulation 6 and committed an offence under regulation 9(1)(b).
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term.
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive.
So besides the fact his reason is included and that it wouldn't matter if it wasn't so long as it was reasonable . . .
Of course they pretend to be impartial. That is what makes me laugh.
It doesn't limit it, but its not listed there, and an obvious question that goes to his“reasonable excuse” defence is "were there no reasonable alternative child care arrangements rather closer to home?"
As George Peretz said, the obvious question for prosecution counsel would be: “if this was reasonable, and given your prominent role, why didn’t you open up about it before being forced to?” If the excuse is not found to be “reasonable”, and govt advice emphasised the role of social services if alternate childcare arrangements could not be found, then he contravened regulation 6 and committed an offence under regulation 9(1)(b).
It was not a reasonable excuse.
Plus reasonable under law is a deliberate term. - citation?
Plus the list isn't defined as exhaustive. - true but I have dealt with this point up thread.
Unless the Guardian has a in the back pocket follow up to expose a lie in his story why is he going to walk now?
Free money.
The government response has been poor and getting worse by the day, it seems!
As I keep saying to you and you keep ignoring one of the reasons is to avoid harm.
Leaving a three year old without adult supervision is harmful.
Or do you think leaving a three year old without supervision isn't harmful?
That will be used to shut this down.
Its obvious Cummings should go on principle - but how is him staying not harmful to the national response to a public health crisis. Is the benefit of his genius worth that cost?
Gove ditto: "Caring for wife and child is not a crime". Indeed so say all of us.
How many of them are sitting on the fence at the moment?
Leavers if course want to end the transition period in December, Remainers want to extend the transition period.
Support for Boris, Cummings and the Government and divisions on all major issues are now seem through the prism of Brexit. The replacement of May by the Leaver Boris and Corbyn by the Remainer Starmer had just increased the Brexit polarisation
1Adur
2Broxbourne
3Chichester
4City of London
5East Hertfordshire
6Epsom and Ewell
7Harlow
8Havant
9Horsham
10Islington
11Malvern Hills
12North Kesteven
13Rochford
14South Hams (10 days with no new cases)
15Sutton
16Torbay
17Uttlesford
18West Devon (10 days with no new cases)
19West Lindsey
20Worthing
21Wychavon
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1264131571461873664.html
Islington is the most surprising but interesting to see Torbay and other Devon areas - wasn't that a hotspot at the beginning ?
As I keep telling you, reg 6(2)(m) doesn't help him. You must "need" (i.e.circumstances in which something is necessary) to travel to avoid harm (start of the relevant section) to have a defence under that section and, because there were childcare alternatives place in London, up to and including social services, there was no "need" for him to travel to avoid harm to his kids.
And that is before we get onto the question of whether his symptoms were severe enough to preclude childcare which, it seems, they were not. Plenty of couples nationwide have managed childcare while suffering from C19 and they were not able to dance to ABBA.
I wait for you to move the goalposts again.
That tells its own story. If he really hadn't stopped, that's an easy point to make by his defenders. The fact they are silent suggests he did stop but they are waiting to see if evidence emerges on the specifics.
Amusing that the usual fanboys are on here defending a case that I don't actually think Cummings is making.
Social services are a last resort if you don't have access to family. He did. And if you're able to leave the home to avoid harm there's no limit on how far you travel to get somewhere safe with family. Just the requirements to have a need which he did.
That you think people should go to social services for children before family is insane.
Pile on the bookies.
Somewhere approaching half the population has some sort of immunity or resistance (perhaps arising from recent exposure to other Coronaviruses such as the common cold). Hence why half those in that ski chalet and half those on the Princess cruise ship walked away uninfected, despite repeated exposure to the virus over an extended period during which no special precautions were being taken.
Of the remaining half, in hotspots such as London (and earlier China, Iran, Lombardy), sufficient - studies are suggesting up to 20% - were infected that, combined with those already with immunity/resistance - the critical herd immunity level of 70% has been achieved.
Hence why infection rates in the early epicentres such as China and Iran have dropped away so quickly, without any social media videos emerging of people dropping dead in the streets.
Hence why new infections in London having dropped away faster than the rest of the UK despite tons of evidence that the lockdown in the capital has been less effective than elsewhere.
So we are now in the phase when the virus has essentially burned out, and releasing us quickly from lockdown should make sense.
This would lead to a short term uptick in new cases, but well within the scope of the NHS to cope. After that, we are in the clear so as long as immunity to the new virus lasts - if this proves to be time limited we’ll be facing a new wave of infections in the medium term, whatever we do now.
Unfortunately we have a government that has been slow to learn from the emerging picture from the data it has been gathering, both initially and right now.
https://www.iancampbell.co.uk/covid-19.php
Three figures on Classic Dom to stay in the job
Facing down your opponents' wrath is strength whichever way you slice it, and a large chunk of the electorate will always respond well to strength. There's no point in showing weakness no matter what the pettifogging details of tomorrow's fish-wrappings may be.
It would good to have an age breakdown of those people now being infected.
https://www.scotianomics.org/covid19-risk-monitor/
Haven't looked at it n detail.
It seems to work on Chrome but not all browsers. The printed report is provided anyway (click on the little picture of it)
Your assertion that your foresight was greater than mine won’t survive even a cursory review of PB archives during February and March. Most of what you posted here back then has subsequently proved to be hyperbolic nonsense.
The child was never in any danger at all and if at any time it became so there were numerous solutions that did not involve breaking quarantine regulations and driving 250 miles.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1264182379377299457?s=20
You think Cummings behaviour is defensible, just as Corbynistas thought Corbyn's response to antisemitism was defensible.
They were wrong then. You are wrong now.
It used to go from 20 to 300, now it tops out at 500. You can't visually compare the maps day on day.
That you have sought to advocate restrictions for the rest of us while taking the p**s yourself speaks volumes.
Driving into Wales to stay away from home is illegal even now.
How long before Laura starts talking about this as a "unfair story about a 3 year old"
I didn't think the Scottish CMO should be fired for visiting her second home, so it would be inconsistent to get het up about Cummings.
Either way is bad for the government really; they are bound to lose votes due to his actions here, but if he is so great at strategy , and he did help Leave win and get Boris an 80 seat majority, then losing him might lose more, I guess thats what they have to weigh up.
And after all, this is politicalbetting.com, not boringmoralizingbetting.com or legalisticnitpickingbetting.com