Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 13,438 comments
  • 766,623 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Cummings strikes me as a ****, and he drives Discovery Sport and called his kid Alexander Cedd... but I am struggling to point to A Thing that he's done wrong here.

When he exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, he put his heavily dependent* son into the car (which is the preferred transport right now, due to its isolating properties) and drove him to the only place he could have appropriate care* - his own parents' place in Barnards Castle - and self-isolated at a building on the property while apparently being exceptionally unwell for ten days. While recovering he took his Government Mandated Daily Exercise in the town - allowing his wife, Mary, to also isolate for 14 days, as per the guidelines - and then returned to London.

No part of this breaches any part of the guidelines laid down on March 23, or Part 6 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. As yet, nobody on the dogpile has been able to cite the thing he did wrong either.


*What this means will come out in the next couple of days, and then used to batter the supposed caring qualities of the left; it's not particularly secret, but it is technically protected information.
His parents live in Durham City according to Durham Police.
Durham Constabulary said: "On Tuesday, March 31, our officers were made aware of reports that an individual had travelled from London to Durham and was present at an address in the city.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52779356

That's quite a drive to get some exercise, I should know, I lived 5 miles outside of Durham and went to school in Barnard Castle. Especially when Durham City has plenty of parks and places nearby to take a walk. I think it is very hard to justify, even if he didn't break the letter of the law. We have people who haven't been able to attend their own children's funeral following not being allowed to hold their hand as they took their last breath. Particularly when you consider his wife's sister lives near them and his own aide lives two streets away.
 
Cummings strikes me as a ****, and he drives Discovery Sport and called his kid Alexander Cedd... but I am struggling to point to A Thing that he's done wrong here.

When he exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, he put his heavily dependent* son into the car (which is the preferred transport right now, due to its isolating properties) and drove him to the only place he could have appropriate care* - his own parents' place in Barnards Castle - and self-isolated at a building on the property while apparently being exceptionally unwell for ten days. While recovering he took his Government Mandated Daily Exercise in the town - allowing his wife, Mary, to also isolate for 14 days, as per the guidelines - and then returned to London.

No part of this breaches any part of the guidelines laid down on March 23, or Part 6 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. As yet, nobody on the dogpile has been able to cite the thing he did wrong either.


*What this means will come out in the next couple of days, and then used to batter the supposed caring qualities of the left; it's not particularly secret, but it is technically protected information.

I'm starting to wonder if you are playing coy here.

The thing that we, the public, got totally battered with, was, outside of going to hospital, you had to stay at home, home being the place you were living at that time. As soon as you got detected with an illness, stay at home for 14 days.

From the following website of a practicing A+E doctor: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...n-at-dominic-cummingss-260-mile-lockdown-trek

The A&E doctor:
“I became sick with Covid-19 in March. My wife was also sick. We have three kids and stayed home to look after them. Because that was the rule. Back at work I dressed in full PPE to look after the sick and dying. I didn’t do all of that so Dominic Cummings could flout the rules.” Dr Farbod Babolhavaeji

This was forwarded to me by a friend who works in NHS as he knew this consultant doctor.

Many other parents, especially those with other difficulties such as mental, physical or emotional difficulties, they wouldn't have the means or the ability to just travel somewhere and get looked after unless they had a ton of money or residental properities that just happened to be available for them.

This whole situation just sounds wrong, seems wrong and does not make any sense whatsoever.

However, you just don't travel 260 miles from London to Durham just because you couldn't find a childminder or someone to take care of your kid in London.
 
Not even Oliver Cromwell was as notorious as Dominic Cummings, the supposed Great Architect of Brexit. But now his head is on a coronavirus spike.
 
The thing that we, the public, got totally battered with, was, outside of going to hospital, you had to stay at home, home being the place you were living at that time. As soon as you got detected with an illness, stay at home for 14 days.
The advice never said that.

Aside from the time period being wrong - it was 7 days with symptoms, and 14 days if you lived with someone exhibiting symptoms - it said you should stay at home, and should not leave even for essentials. It also said that - for those living with children particularly - it may not be possible. I linked it and everything.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection

However, you just don't travel 260 miles from London to Durham just because you couldn't find a childminder or someone to take care of your kid in London.
No you don't... but see the footnote. Again, it's privileged (medical) information, but the child's circumstances may have warranted it. Durham Constabulary spoke to him at the time, and didn't pursue it.
His parents live in Durham City according to Durham Police.
I've double-checked (I didn't particularly care about this issue) and from what I understand, the parents have a farm near Houghall Woods, and he stayed in an out-building there. I'm actually not sure where the Barnard Castle thing has come from, apart from some local eyewitness saying he saw him there.

Edit: Apparently the eyewitness saw him get into a car that has the same first five characters in its registration plate as one he found on Google Images of Dominic Cummings using once. Slam dunk :lol:
 
Last edited:
It appears he's more like Rasputin.
I've recently watched a multi-hour BBC series on the Plantagenets and the Stuarts. It's interesting how the unelected and the uncrowned influenced history then, as they do now. Heads on spikes and quartering was a recurring anodyne. History does not repeat, but perhaps it rhymes?
 
The advice never said that.

Aside from the time period being wrong - it was 7 days with symptoms, and 14 days if you lived with someone exhibiting symptoms - it said you should stay at home, and should not leave even for essentials. It also said that - for those living with children particularly - it may not be possible. I linked it and everything.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection


No you don't... but see the footnote. Again, it's privileged (medical) information, but the child's circumstances may have warranted it. Durham Constabulary spoke to him at the time, and didn't pursue it.

The issue is, if the government says you "should" stay at home, you had to stay at home.

You could go outside and all that, but the issue was, you were going to put people at risk, you were likely to be stopped if you went to a police patrolled location or you were going to get people pushing you to move on because you had some symptoms of the flu/Covid-19.

If the British Government says you "should" say in, its really telling you to "You are needed to stay in during lockdown but we don't want to make the army come out and actually make sure you stay in".

Regardless of all the above.

My main issue is, even if there was a real reason for Dominic Cummings to travel all the way up there and there really weren't anyone else that was educated or able to deal with the supposedly medically incapaticated child (I have to call it supposedly, because I am super jaded with this), it just doesn't make any sense why there were not an arrangement for someone or something to happen to come to him to solve the situation.

Also, it broke on May. This was in the end of March. Almost 2 months to the date. If it was that timeframe, you would have thought it would have been commuinicated so much earlier and dealt with, which it obviously weren't.

All Dominic Cummings had to do at that time was hold his hand up, say he travelled all the way up there because of family emergency relating to his son which he wants to keep private and then move on.

Doing it now, just. makes. no. sense.
 
The issue is, if the government says you "should" stay at home, you had to stay at home.
No - "should" is not "must". There is a very clear language hierarchy in government guidance. "Should" is something you ought to do, "Must" is something required by law. Check out the Highway Code as an example of this.

The guidance also added a specific note that it may not be possible to adhere to all the guidelines if you also care for children. It's right in that link I shared.

My main issue is, even if there was a real reason for Dominic Cummings to travel all the way up there and there really weren't anyone else that was educated or able to deal with the supposedly medically incapaticated child (I have to call it supposedly, because I am super jaded with this), it just doesn't make any sense why there were not an arrangement for someone or something to happen to come to him to solve the situation.
Not medically incapacitated - that wouldn't make any sense anyway; that's what ambulances and hospitals are for, not a four-hour drive to grandma.

You can find it on Google, but bear in mind it is privileged information about a minor. If the Cummings choose to share it in the public domain - as they will no doubt be hounded into doing - that's a different matter.

Also, it broke on May. This was in the end of March. Almost 2 months to the date. If it was that timeframe, you would have thought it would have been commuinicated so much earlier and dealt with, which it obviously weren't.

All Dominic Cummings had to do at that time was hold his hand up, say he travelled all the way up there because of family emergency relating to his son which he wants to keep private and then move on.
It "broke" because a newspaper reported on it, after finding out about it two months after it happened. I'm not sure what business it is of anyone's why this guy, entirely within the advice in the guidelines (which he reputedly played a part in writing, so would know exactly what's in them), went to a safe place for him and his family while he isolated with symptoms of COVID-19 - nor why it's anyone's business what medical requirements his four-year old son has. The police in Durham interviewed him on March 31st and were satisfied enough to leave it there.

I'm still not sure what law it was he has broken, especially given that the police declined to charge or caution him with anything. The reportage seems light on it too, just fury that he did something that other people didn't think they could do.


If he did drive from Houghall Woods to Barnard Castle for a walk some time in mid-April, before the restrictions eased enough for people to do that, sure. The evidence on that seems flimsy right now, but should that turn out to be true, it's not on.
 
The issue becomes:

If the government said "Should" but there is also a fine to compel you to stay at home or to turn back to your home, doesn't that mean that it is a "must"?

I think the issue is that for most people, it just sounded like Dominic Cummings went to a second household that they owned and it was already against the government guildelines to go to a second home or a random "building".

The problem becomes, the wife apparently (as reported) fell ill first with Covid-19 symptoms. For most people reading the guidelines, they had to isolate immediately for 14 days, just to ensure that the second person didn't get Covid-19. Lots of other people in that same situation also stayed in that situation and dealt with it, because they don't have the money to go elsewhere, no second home or had no option but to stay where they are. But if they had, and they did, you would know that they would be fined and told to go back to their "real" home.

Why should Dominic Cummings, throwing everything to the wind, decided to uproot his whole family over to a second "building" that they apparently had the ability to use, 260 miles from London, go there, when it was written quite clearly, that you just don't move from your own household, which is where you are living in?

The problem is, is not whether it was legal. The issue is, it just seems so socially wrong and irresponsibile and it just crapped in people's faces who try to follow the government advice to the letter.

If Dominic Cummings or Boris Johnson has repeated stated that there was a serious medical situation with the youngster, then it would have been looked the other way. But if the media broke on this, it just seems it wasn't that bad of an issue so....

Honestly, it smells pretty bad either way.
 
Last edited:
If the government said "Should" but there is also a fine to compel you to stay at home or to turn back to your home, doesn't that mean that it is a "must"?
No. There's literally a list in law of exemptions. If your circumstances dictate that you cannot adhere to a "should" despite your best efforts, you may be allowed to not adhere to it.

Going to a family member's funeral was one such exemption in law, so this argument that people couldn't go to funerals I've seen everywhere today is a non-starter.

The problem becomes, the wife apparently (as reported) fell ill first with Covid-19 symptoms. For most people reading the guidelines, they had to isolate immediately for 14 days, just to ensure that the second person didn't get Covid-19.
That's incorrect. The person with the symptoms should isolate immediately for seven days, while anyone living with them should isolate immediately for 14, while vulnerable people can be removed to other friends or family members.

Cummings wasn't able to stay at home and not leave under any circumstances, as the guidelines say you should because of the child's particular special needs. He removed the vulnerable child to family members (appropriate to the condition, satisfying the child's safeguarding needs) and isolated for seven days. Like the guidelines say.

Lots of other people in that same situation also stayed in that situation and dealt with it, because they don't have the money to go elsewhere, no second home or had no option but to stay where they are. But if they had, and they did, you would know that they would be fined and told to go back to their "real" home.
Again, there's a list of exemptions in law, and the guidelines are guidelines, not law.
Why should Dominic Cummings, throwing everything to the wind, decided to uproot his whole family over to a second "building" that they apparently had the ability to use, 260 miles from London, go there, when it was written quite clearly, that you just don't move from your own household, which is where you are living in?
That isn't what the guidelines or law said. He, at least by the judgment of attending officers, does not appear to have broken any law and his actions are consistent with the guidelines.
If Dominic Cummings or Boris Johnson has repeated stated that there was a serious medical situation with the youngster, then it would have been looked the other way.
I'm not sure what business it is of anyone's why this guy, entirely within the advice in the guidelines (which he reputedly played a part in writing, so would know exactly what's in them), went to a safe place for him and his family while he isolated with symptoms of COVID-19 - nor why it's anyone's business what medical requirements his four-year old son has. The police in Durham interviewed him on March 31st and were satisfied enough to leave it there.
Why do the general public need to know the medical details of any four-year old? This guy isn't even an elected official that the public could expect to hold to account. He's satisfied the police and his boss with the information he provided.

I'm vaguely aware that the details are in fact reasonably well known in Fleet Street - Mary Wakefield, Cummings' wife, is an editor at the Spectator - and it appears pretty repellent that newspapers have chosen to go to press with this story in the full knowledge that a four-year old's health and wellbeing, something which quite rightly should be private, is the heart of the situation and it cannot be defended adequately without revealing these details to the general public.
 
No. There's literally a list in law of exemptions. If your circumstances dictate that you cannot adhere to a "should" despite your best efforts, you may be allowed to not adhere to it.

Going to a family member's funeral was one such exemption in law, so this argument that people couldn't go to funerals I've seen everywhere today is a non-starter.


Again, there's a list of exemptions in law, and the guidelines are guidelines, not law.

That isn't what the guidelines or law said. He, at least by the judgment of attending officers, does not appear to have broken any law and his actions are consistent with the guidelines.

@Famine, I want to thank you for being patient and helping the rest of us see how the discussion (not argument!) develop, as it is important to show many different view and how life is not simple at all.

The first bit about not going to funerals and so on, it kind of feels like a gotcha, as a lot of burials or ashes production (I forgot the word now) would have to occur, but as its only immediate family and not extended family, that's harsh on cousins and so on, unless it was livestreamed. It just feels a bit weird if the funeral parlours weren't open to people about what they could do and couldn't do, due to Covid-19. Should those business be dobbed in?

That's incorrect. The person with the symptoms should isolate immediately for seven days, while anyone living with them should isolate immediately for 14, while vulnerable people can be removed to other friends or family members.

Cummings wasn't able to stay at home and not leave under any circumstances, as the guidelines say you should because of the child's particular special needs. He removed the vulnerable child to family members (appropriate to the condition, satisfying the child's safeguarding needs) and isolated for seven days. Like the guidelines say.

You would have expected a reasonable person to drop off the vunerable child to a trusted person and then gone back to the original home, as insane as it sounds to do so. But if you want to follow the rules and guidelines that is what you are expected to do so, as I read what you have written.

The word "can" always leaves it to interpretation to be abused for transportation of a vulnerable person. So does that mean the police,the social services or the medical authority are the right people to talk to at that time?

The issue is and this is going on privacy concerns so I am not keen to ask this, does it show whether Dominic Cummings dropped off the kid and went back to his wife, or he stayed with the child? It isn't even the point, but it if he did stay at that place with Covid-19 symptoms, which he apparently was feeling then, why would he had stayed there?

None of this makes any sense.

Why do the general public need to know the medical details of any four-year old? This guy isn't even an elected official that the public could expect to hold to account. He's satisfied the police and his boss with the information he provided.

I'm vaguely aware that the details are in fact reasonably well known in Fleet Street - Mary Wakefield, Cummings' wife, is an editor at the Spectator - and it appears pretty repellent that newspapers have chosen to go to press with this story in the full knowledge that a four-year old's health and wellbeing, something which quite rightly should be private, is the heart of the situation and it cannot be defended adequately without revealing these details to the general public.

The general public doesn't care fo the son's medical issues. The issue is, it is, to a reasonable person following the guidedance of the government, that Dominic Cummings went against the guidedance he put in place and made it one for the rich and another for everyone else.

If Mary Wakefield is well known to Fleet Street, it surprises me that they broke on this, as they are normally pretty good at not actually breaking on another journo unless something had happened to flip it around.

I suspect it might be the case that some people don't think it is fair that others can just travel miles and miles for whatever legal reason it is, when it was quite clear that they couldn't, as said the following:

The prime minister said that Mr Cummings was within the guidelines, because of the severe challenges of finding childcare, he seemed almost to be praising him for following his "instinct" as a good father.

The problem with that, is that millions of parents were told they couldn't follow their instincts, the government's lockdown rules were "instructions", in the words of Cabinet ministers.

Many of the public would have loved to have relied on family members if they were unlucky enough to fall ill. Many of the public would have loved to have followed their instincts in going to visit relatives who were suffering, or far away.

But instead they followed the daily exhortations from the government, the prime minister's appeal to the nation, and stayed home instead - however hard it was.​
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52793376

The above as shown, with the link. It just doesn't make sense and it only makes sense when you have money, have other properities you had or was given or had the ability to go into and pay for it.


My main frustration is that it just seems underhanded when it first came out and going on about whether it was legal or not, it shys away from what the government was trying to tell the population to do, which was "Stay at home, don't do anything stupid, please don't!".

Yet some people go out and do that.


 
The advice never said that.

23rd March, Boris Johnson: "I must give the British people a very simple instruction – you must stay at home"

26th March, Parliament: Regulations make it an offence to leave home without a "reasonable excuse"

28th March, Cummings: Takes corona-virus symptomatic wife on a drive from London to Durham

5th April, Cummings: Suggestions that he's seen again at family homes in Durham after having returned to London once, coincidentally his maternal uncle (Lord Justice Laws) has just passed away with coronavirus

Many many people have been fined despite it being their opinion that their travel was essential, that's why some people find it galling that Cummings' is driving the length of the country with a potential coronavirus sufferer (whose family have been confirmed to have coronavirus cases) at a time when people couldn't be with their loved ones as they died, and couldn't hold "proper" funerals for them.

If the Cummings child needed particular medical care then a) a provider would already be in place b) the extremely wealthy Cummings family could provide that with ease c) the Cummings family could use the family who live in London to provide that care and thereby avoid moving into another Trust's area with suspected coronavirus cases.

I think the worst part of the Cummings story for many people is his "**** you, I had a reason!" approach and, seemingly, the protection he's receiving from government for his actions while "normal" families are unable to do the same things. The phrase "one rule for them and another for us" seems very apt in this case. I'd certainly hope that people who've received fines for similar actions are able to receive a judicial review of police actions in light of this new interpretation of what's okay. Lord Justice Laws would be proud if that happened.
 
without a "reasonable excuse"
This being the crux. Durham's boys in blue spoke to all the Cummings at the property on March 31st - after The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Notification) Regulations 2020 came into force - and took no further action.

Two months later the dude's being beaten in the press for something the cops already spoke to him about and, apparently, determined he had a reasonable excuse - for little reason I can see other than they sell papers on the basis of hating him* and because he hasn't made that reasonable excuse public... which he doesn't need to do. The cops were satisified, his boss was satisfied.


*After a prolonged period of time painting him as an evil genius, the architect of Brexit, and the true power behind the Johnson throne; in fairness, if this is all true, that makes him Alistair Campbell, but blue.
 
So many wrong things going on here! Snitching, bad decision to lock-down the population, press don't follow the distancing rules(which I don't mind to be honest, after all for the oldies to come out and play we need to get the virus done and dusted), poor statistics, brainwashing. It's very similar in scale to a normal flu virus, so what's the reason ? Poor judgement or on purpose?

roadrunner.png
 
We don't have access to Durham Constabulary's case file but I am also sure that there are people who simply won't believe that the police used their discretion and took NFA; he must have threatened them or pulled some stroke to get off the hook.

I'm sure there are facts as to why he wasn't punished for his actions but other people have been for doing what they would consider similar actions using "parental instincts" to care for elderly relatives who cannot survive alone or attend the funerals of loved ones who have died, many as a direct result of covid.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't wonder why it wasn't possible for a wealthy government executive to have someone take care of his child(ren) locally. Surely in non-covid times there are measures the family have in place at their London residence.

The outrage isn't necessarily that he did what he did in driving 200+ miles from London to Durham, it's that he can with no punishment and others cannot irrespective of the reasons why. There are thousands of families who need to do the same thing but cannot or daren't.

By the way when I called Cummings a maggot, that was independent of him being the hot button of the week. But given that there had been an evident lack of activity in the thread, noöne is making the headlines more than him at the moment.
 
I've recently watched a multi-hour BBC series on the Plantagenets and the Stuarts. It's interesting how the unelected and the uncrowned influenced history then, as they do now. Heads on spikes and quartering was a recurring anodyne. History does not repeat, but perhaps it rhymes?
As this is a British thread, I reserve the right to respond to this incoherent mess the British way;

What in the bloody hell are you talking about, man?

Sidenote; I think you underestimate the vast relevance of Cromwell to his time, he was rather more well known and significantly more pivotal to the events that came about around him. I grew up on a road bearing his name - I highly doubt we will see a Dominic Cummings Close.

Which was a civil war, for clarity, it's a rather far cry from a government advisor being caught ignoring government advice. That (the latter) is business as usual.
 
We don't have access to Durham Constabulary's case file but I am also sure that there are people who simply won't believe that the police used their discretion and took NFA; he must have threatened them or pulled some stroke to get off the hook.
There will be people who believe whatever they wish, but the facts of the matter are pretty plain. The police attended, spoke to them, and did not pursue any charges relating to a breach of the COVID regulations. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a breach, of course, just that the police decided there wasn't a reason to pursue it further.

Two months later, some papers have whipped up a frenzy on a matter the police decided wasn't something to pursue.

attend the funerals of loved ones who have died
I keep seeing this one, but...
Restrictions on movement
6.—
(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member, or

(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;


(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.
The exemption is literally included in the law on the matter.
The outrage isn't necessarily that he did what he did in driving 200+ miles from London to Durham, it's that he can with no punishment and others cannot irrespective of the reasons why.
This doesn't make any particular sense though. They could, and the reasons why are fundamental to the fact that they could.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't wonder why it wasn't possible for a wealthy government executive to have someone take care of his child(ren) locally. Surely in non-covid times there are measures the family have in place at their London residence.
In this case a mere "someone" isn't an appropriate person. The child's needs would require specific people.
 
The child's needs would require specific people.

I agree with much of what you say, particularly that Cummings is a blue Campbell, which I take to mean "ruthless, driven, hyper-intelligent and utterly odious". I also take your point that the letter of the law is "reasonable excuse". My feeling (apocryphal notes from social media browsing) is that much of the public's concern is about what excuse is reasonable for who. I've seen some genuinely upsetting posts from people who haven't been offered such latitude and have been turned back from doing similar things, sometimes in tragic situations.

I wouldn't disagree that the anti-Cummings briefings are also politically driven but I think there is a genuine issue about a lack of guidance or consistency on what is reasonable and for whom.

Not even Oliver Cromwell was as notorious as Dominic Cummings

Source required. Cromwell would have been known to the great majority of the public by name, deed and reputation. I suspect that a good portion of today's British public is now aware of his name but little else.

I've recently watched a multi-hour BBC series on the Plantagenets and the Stuarts. It's interesting how the unelected and the uncrowned influenced history then, as they do now.

Wealth, military projection and birthright have always been a part of politics in every part of human history that we know about. Why just pick the Plantos and the Stuarts? And did the BBC* forget something in between those? :D

History does not repeat

See above

perhaps it rhymes?

Hmm.


* Watch anything by Lucy Worsley if you can, or Janina Ramirez. Their BBC output has been great lately.
 
I agree with much of what you say, particularly that Cummings is a blue Campbell, which I take to mean "ruthless, driven, hyper-intelligent and utterly odious". I also take your point that the letter of the law is "reasonable excuse". My feeling (apocryphal notes from social media browsing) is that much of the public's concern is about what excuse is reasonable for who. I've seen some genuinely upsetting posts from people who haven't been offered such latitude and have been turned back from doing similar things, sometimes in tragic situations.

I wouldn't disagree that the anti-Cummings briefings are also politically driven but I think there is a genuine issue about a lack of guidance or consistency on what is reasonable and for whom.
The policing on this has been at best inconsistent and at worst disgusting. I recall a couple of weeks ago a story that almost every fine the police nationwide issued for breaches of the restrictions was wrong.

Back in mid-March I remember commenting that Johnson's approach to restrictions was surprisingly adult and libertarian. The general idea was for people to manage themselves - isolate if symptomatic, distance and take care in public - with the exception of large public gatherings and some types of businesses. Then Joe Q. Public proved incapable of doing so (I'm guessing that the decades of being nannied have had an effect, and when left to our own devices [we probably would] we can't do the right thing), and police were having to attend large parties and barbecues that people were holding as a sort of "if we're going to be locked up, then we'll have one last party" thing, resulting in the more stringent, legislated version which crossed the line into the authoritarian. From what I've read, Netherlands has successfully used the adult approach throughout.

Cummings' actions appear to marry into the original intent of the pre-restriction guidance. He's used his best judgment to isolate his family in a place where they can all receive appropriate care (with the kid's needs in mind) and put as few people as possible at risk and met safeguarding concerns. The fact that the actions are also permitted in law ought to make this a non-story - but this seems to be a case of someone (who is also a hate figure) having something that other people don't, with no benefit of the doubt given, for reasons other than a guy doing what's ultimately best for as many people as possible. Including a four-year old.
 
The advice never said that.

Aside from the time period being wrong - it was 7 days with symptoms, and 14 days if you lived with someone exhibiting symptoms - it said you should stay at home, and should not leave even for essentials. It also said that - for those living with children particularly - it may not be possible. I linked it and everything.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection
I don't know if it's changed from the time Cummings allegedly broke it, but your link says "must" in its current edition:

  • if you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19), then you must stay at home for at least 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill. See the explanatory diagram
EDIT: Ahhh I see what you mean, it changes to "should" in the explanations below
 
347,000 have died WITH Covid-19(including gunshot victims), flu deaths normally between 250,00 and 500,000
COVID's death toll comes from around 1/15th of the number of infections of seasonal flu.
 
COVID's death toll comes from around 1/15th of the number of infections of seasonal flu.

Maybe you'll be right (when all the numbers are in). Then again....

So is it easier to catch than seasonal flu or more difficult? You didn't mention, and it is relevant.
 
This being the crux. Durham's boys in blue spoke to all the Cummings at the property on March 31st - after The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Notification) Regulations 2020 came into force - and took no further action.

Two months later the dude's being beaten in the press for something the cops already spoke to him about and, apparently, determined he had a reasonable excuse - for little reason I can see other than they sell papers on the basis of hating him* and because he hasn't made that reasonable excuse public... which he doesn't need to do. The cops were satisified, his boss was satisfied.
You keep speaking about the letter of the law, but surely you couldn't honestly say the outcome would have been the same if you replaced a politician driving to an estate house with Vicky Pollard driving a 2002 Focus to a council estate? That is where the one rule for them, one rule for us comes into effect. Been seeing it in Canada too with travel to holiday houses - a leader will come out on Friday and strongly discourage people from driving to their holiday houses (which they own and pay tax etc on), and then get spotted at their own cottage 24hrs later.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
347,000 have died WITH Covid-19(including gunshot victims), flu deaths normally between 250,00 and 500,000. By way of scale 4,500,000 have died of starvation this year.
This is all deaths, COVID-19 related or not. Sure, everything looks normal, was all overblown :rolleyes:
https%3A%2F%2Fd6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net%2Fprod%2F0ea943d0-99d1-11ea-8714-b55675e4ab12-standard.png
 
You keep speaking about the letter of the law, but surely you couldn't honestly say the outcome would have been the same if you replaced a politician driving to an estate house with Vicky Pollard driving a 2002 Focus to a council estate? That is where the one rule for them, one rule for us comes into effect.
If the same situation applies, yes. Safeguarding is something that anyone who deals with the public and with children should have training in.
Been seeing it in Canada too with travel to holiday houses - a leader will come out on Friday and strongly discourage people from driving to their holiday houses (which they own and pay tax etc on), and then get spotted at their own cottage 24hrs later.
That's not the same situation. Where's the safeguarding concerns?

In fact we had a well-known author fly to his holiday home in Skye, from New Zealand, who was spoken to by police for doing so. In his case there were extenuating circumstances and he chose an action he thought was appropriate, but a 12,500 mile trip when people are supposed to be at home was... unwise.

Maybe you'll be right (when all the numbers are in). Then again....

So is it easier to catch than seasonal flu or more difficult? You didn't mention, and it is relevant.
The raw data suggests that without distancing measures, SARS-CoV-2 has an R0 of around six, compared to the various influenza viruses which vary - because it's several different viral strains - between 1.5 and 3.5. Flu also doesn't have a long asymptomatic infectious period - you are infectious when you have symptoms, and it's under 48hr - while you can be infectious with COVID-19 inside three days and not symptomatic for 14.

So yes, it's easier to spread (because you do so unwittingly), and more infectious.

It also hospitalises somewhere around one in five people for confirmed cases, which flu doesn't, and it appears to be able to cause permanent lung damage and an array of symptoms in children that resemble the autoimmune Kawasaki disease (which should really be a syndrome rather than a disease).

All this is in the Coronavirus thread, which I suggest you use instead of this one.
 
That's not the same situation. Where's the safeguarding concerns?
The message was that the cottage communities don't have the healthcare capacity to deal with a cluster of cases if someone from the city brings the plague up for the weekend.
 
The message was that the cottage communities don't have the healthcare capacity to deal with a cluster of cases if someone from the city brings the plague up for the weekend.
Yes, I am aware, but that wasn't my question. There are safeguarding concerns behind the Cummings story, which cannot be said of a politician choosing to go to a holiday home - thus the two situations are not parallels.
 
Back