When will this shit end?

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, Brownie30 said:

250 mile journey with a toddler, do you not think they may have had to stop off once, maybe twice? Last I heard service station workers aren't immune to Coronavirus. This is just one amongst a number of reasons that his actions are incredibly unreasonable - the fact his family are likely to have a big fancy house is entirely irrelevant. 

He could easily have got someone to top up his car before he left, and drop off food for the journey. Yes they would need a break but that could be done in a service station car park. 

There's lots of stuff that's against the rules of the current laws that you could actually do without putting anyone at risk if done right. But we the public can't be trusted to do them right.

I'm not defending Cummings - he should have been setting an example. Just that the story here is probably "one rule for them and one rule for us" not "Cummings puts family and service station works at risk of infection".

Obviously if it turns out that a guy at Doncaster services served him a coffee and he had direct contact with his sister and parents that'll be a different matter. But I don't think he's that stupid or uncaring for his own family.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Because it could be done in such a way as not to put anyone else at risk. And I'm okay assuming it was done that way. We can call Cummings a psychopath but the only reason to do what he did was to ensure his kid was looked after, so I find it hard to believe he went "my family might catch it and die but I don't care". 

They can look after their kid at their own home, the sister can come pick up the kid, he works in government someone not infected could’ve driven the kid up to Durham. None of driving 250 miles whilst infected with COVID is reasonable. Every single one of us have to stick to these rules, so should he. 
 

It is unbelievable that there are still people defending them. Wake up before it’s too late. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Ozanne

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, Brownie30 said:

He has relatives in London, he works in London. I refuse to accept there were no alternatives to breaking temporary laws put in place to save lives. 

There were definitely alternatives. That's doesn't mean the choice he made couldn't be done safely though.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

He could easily have got someone to top up his car before he left, and drop off food for the journey. Yes they would need a break but that could be done in a service station car park. 

There's lots of stuff that's against the rules of the current laws that you could actually do without putting anyone at risk if done right. But we the public can't be trusted to do them right.

I'm not defending Cummings - he should have been setting an example. Just that the story here is probably "one rule for them and one rule for us" not "Cummings puts family and service station works at risk of infection".

Obviously if it turns out that a guy at Doncaster services served him a coffee and he had direct contact with his sister and parents that'll be a different matter. But I don't think he's that stupid or uncaring for his own family.

he went into their house ffs ... thats what we are still being told not to do ....

[Brownie30]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

There were definitely alternatives. That's doesn't mean the choice he made couldn't be done safely though.

Frankly I don't care whether people think it "could" be done safely or not. Rules have been in place for a reason and the general public have been consistently informed by the government to follow those exact rules in order to save lives, to the extent where family members haven't been at others deathbeds. One of their own has been caught out not following the rules, and so they move the goalposts so that he can get away with it. It absolutely stinks and there is no justifiable reason for the man not to lose his job. 

[jparx]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

There were definitely alternatives. That's doesn't mean the choice he made couldn't be done safely though.

It's irrelevant. It was against the lockdown rules. Doesn't matter what his reason or motivation was.

[TheFullShaboo]

13 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If it's true that his sister was taking care of the kids and none of them have contact with the parents then it seems reasonable. I doubt his family are in a two bed council house.

But if they did live in a 2 bed then you'd be of a different opinion? This is the type of elitist attitude that defines the Tories and their ludicrous approaches - One approach for the rich, another for the rest

[DeanoL]

Just now, Ozanne said:

They can look after their kid at their own home, the sister can come pick up the kid, he works in government someone not infected could’ve driven the kid up to Durham. None of driving 250 miles whilst infected with COVID is reasonable. Every single one of us how to stick to these rules, so should he. 

I'm guessing the idea was the family could look after the kid if they got too ill to do so. Short of that, you don't want anyone else having contact with the kid as he could be infected by asymptomatic. So you get someone else to fill up the car, and then pile the family in and drive to a house up north that you can access without seeing anyone else, while you're still well enough to drive, so that should you get too ill you have a childcare option.

The point at which caring for the child yourself becomes an issue, you have to make a choice between if the kid is more at risk with you, or if it puts the sister at risk if she takes the kid. If you're Cummings, maybe you can get a test. But that's a choice your family makes.

It's having a plan for "what if we both get really, really sick at the same time and can't look after the child". Incidentally, what would have to happen there if family were not an option, is a state carer would have to look after the kid, which would put them at risk. 

There's no reason doing what he did has to put anyone at risk. I can absolutely see the logic behind it. It's also still totally against the rules. Plenty of people have been in a similar position and not take that option because it's against the law.

The issue here is him breaking the rule. That's what he needs hammering on. The "did he actually put anyone at risk?" question isn't really relevant, because regardless of if he did what I just wrote, or did something that put a load of people at risk, he'll still be able to spin the story that it was like what I said, and you won't be able to prove otherwise, and it fizzles out. "Cummings put people at risk" "No he didn't. here's why" "Oh".

The story here is that he believed himself above the law because he knew better. Just because maybe he actually did know better, doesn;t make him right.

[Simsy]

Just now, Brownie30 said:

Frankly I don't care whether people think it "could" be done safely or not. Rules have been in place for a reason and the general public have been consistently informed by the government to follow those exact rules in order to save lives, to the extent where family members haven't been at others deathbeds. One of their own has been caught out not following the rules, and so they move the goalposts so that he can get away with it. It absolutely stinks and there is no justifiable reason for the man not to lose his job. 

Exactly. That randy prof was forced out despite not putting anyone at risk, so even if Cummings did this as safely as possible that doesn't make his behaviour ok. The gov are making out like the rules don't apply if you love your kids. Shame they didn't tell parents that weeks ago.

[DeanoL]

8 minutes ago, Brownie30 said:

Frankly I don't care whether people think it "could" be done safely or not. Rules have been in place for a reason and the general public have been consistently informed by the government to follow those exact rules in order to save lives, to the extent where family members haven't been at others deathbeds. One of their own has been caught out not following the rules, and so they move the goalposts so that he can get away with it. It absolutely stinks and there is no justifiable reason for the man not to lose his job. 

 

5 minutes ago, jparx said:

It's irrelevant. It was against the lockdown rules. Doesn't matter what his reason or motivation was.

This is exactly the point I have been making. Re-read my posts.

4 minutes ago, TheFullShaboo said:

But if they did live in a 2 bed then you'd be of a different opinion? This is the type of elitist attitude that defines the Tories and their ludicrous approaches - One approach for the rich, another for the rest

Yes. If your house has three wings, you can live in one, your parents the other and your sister the third. It *is* different. The law doesn't differentiate though, and shouldn;t.

[Zoo Music Girl]

Just now, Simsy said:

Exactly. That randy prof was forced out despite not putting anyone at risk, so even if Cummings did this as safely as possible that doesn't make his behaviour ok. The gov are making out like the rules don't apply if you love your kids. Shame they didn't tell parents that weeks ago.

Yeah that element of moral judgement (that he did it because he loves his kids) is so abhorrent. As if everyone else should have broken the rules too, they just didn't care about their family enough. So vile.

[zahidf]

Rule number one is not to break quarantine. So he broke it. 

Govt choosing Cummings over lockdown is pretty telling.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'm guessing the idea was the family could look after the kid if they got too ill to do so. Short of that, you don't want anyone else having contact with the kid as he could be infected by asymptomatic. So you get someone else to fill up the car, and then pile the family in and drive to a house up north that you can access without seeing anyone else, while you're still well enough to drive, so that should you get too ill you have a childcare option.

The point at which caring for the child yourself becomes an issue, you have to make a choice between if the kid is more at risk with you, or if it puts the sister at risk if she takes the kid. If you're Cummings, maybe you can get a test. But that's a choice your family makes.

It's having a plan for "what if we both get really, really sick at the same time and can't look after the child". Incidentally, what would have to happen there if family were not an option, is a state carer would have to look after the kid, which would put them at risk. 

There's no reason doing what he did has to put anyone at risk. I can absolutely see the logic behind it. It's also still totally against the rules. Plenty of people have been in a similar position and not take that option because it's against the law.

The issue here is him breaking the rule. That's what he needs hammering on. The "did he actually put anyone at risk?" question isn't really relevant, because regardless of if he did what I just wrote, or did something that put a load of people at risk, he'll still be able to spin the story that it was like what I said, and you won't be able to prove otherwise, and it fizzles out. "Cummings put people at risk" "No he didn't. here's why" "Oh".

The story here is that he believed himself above the law because he knew better. Just because maybe he actually did know better, doesn;t make him right.

Rubbish. He broke the law, put more people under unnecessary risk and is getting a free pass for the government that put these rules in place. This is why we have a government that openly lies to the population because you have people like you that will defend them no matter what happens.

 

I haven’t seen my 2 nephews in 2 months now, yet this prick can go to his whole family whilst ill. So quite frankly you can do one whilst you try to make out that what he’s down isn’t so bad. 
 

Would you (or the Tories) be saying the same if this was Raheem Sterling?

[gizmoman]

5 minutes ago, Simsy said:

Exactly. That randy prof was forced out despite not putting anyone at risk, so even if Cummings did this as safely as possible that doesn't make his behaviour ok. The gov are making out like the rules don't apply if you love your kids. Shame they didn't tell parents that weeks ago.

He was putting others at risk, his girlfriend was traveling between two houses potentially spreading the virus. That doesn't excuse Cummings though, he could have stayed in London but wanted to be somewhere more convenient. What he did may not have been illegal but it went against the guidance the rest of us have had to follow at great personal cost to some.

[basicminds]

I checked earlier and Dominic Cummings only has one kid- surely a week of IPAD would of covered childcare?  Its hours after I found out and am still outraged!

[Northtim]

27 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

There were definitely alternatives. That's doesn't mean the choice he made couldn't be done safely though.

Crazy that anyone thinks this is ok.

If any journo at the daily updates, or member of public on a phone in with an mp (including Raab, Gove & Sunak despite what they say now), had 6/7 weeks ago asked “If I think I have Covid-19 is it ok to drive 250 miles to my relatives in case they need to look after my child?“, the answer would have been an unequivocal no - stay home, stay safe. I am absolutely 100% sure of this.

It was against the guidelines, and the tories defending it is shameful. Cummings should be gone. 

[Simsy]

4 minutes ago, basicminds said:

I checked earlier and Dominic Cummings only has one kid- surely a week of IPAD would of covered childcare?  Its hours after I found out and am still outraged!

Maybe he doesn't have an iPad, poor chap. He only has a spare empty house 260 miles away.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, crazyfool1 said:

We’ve had one from Priti Patel haven’t we ? She might struggle with numbers greater than 10 though ... 

 You mean naughteen?

[Guest]

All these lies will one day come back to haunt this government, they have to. I’ve been thinking a lot about the following quote which was in the TV series Chernobyl. I think it fits very well right now:

 

‘...We're on dangerous ground right now. Because of our secrets and our lies. They are practically what defines us. When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we cannot even remember it's there. But it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, the debt is paid...’

[Ayrshire Chris]

The other thing to remember is that Johnson and other members of the cabinet have been aware of this for weeks and obviously hoped that it would not be exposed.  They are culpable as well.  It took pressure up here from the media and other politicians to get our health chief removed after her visits to her holiday home. Only then did Sturgeon sack her. 

Cummings will have been consulted on all the decisions on lock down etc. Very much a case of do as I say, not as I do. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

For me this big issue is he actually had the virus and left the house to travel elsewhere. There is one thing leaving the house without knowing you’ve got it and seeing friends family etc, that’s bad because you might have the virus, but he definitely had the virus. Neil Ferguson didn’t leave the house and already had the virus previously, so realistically what he actually did was zero risk to anyone, and zero risk of spreading the virus which is the whole point of lockdown, yet he had to go out of principle. This is several layers worse, so his positions is surely completely untenable. 

I would say there must have been genuine reasons for what he did relating to his kids though. I know that isn’t an excuse, but he isn’t a stupid person, I can’t for a second see why he would take the risk of the inevitable consequences if he really didn’t think he had to.

It would have been better if he just gave the genuine reasoning from the start, rather than trying to brush it off as points scoring etc, it’s far too late though, and they’ve got themselves In completely inevitable knots trying to cover up something they should know isn’t going to be let go by anyone.

I can only see this going one way, but whatever happens he’ll just continue to advice on secret anyway.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[Cherry Tree]

Transport Secretary Grant Schapps has drawn the short straw. I would start by asking him whether there are any plans to upgrade the A1.

[jparx]

I actually feel quite sickened reading these responses from MPs, particularly those that have an almost angry tone to them, claiming it's "inappropriate to politicise it". A government advisor knowingly breaks rules he helped put together, yet how DARE we demand answers. They treat us like utter shit and it's contempt of democracy to try and brush this under the carpet. And not the first time this government has been guilty of that.

[zahidf]

Ha!

 

Attorney general says it's fine to commit a crime to save your kids

 

 

 

[Crazyfool01]

51 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

 You mean naughteen?

That’s the one ... I mean three oh ffs !!