|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 15:35:49 GMT
Would it have to be a regular occurrence? Lots of female MPs reported feeling threatened after being targeted with unpleasant remarks and heckling, not always sustained. (And they were right to speak out about it, by the way. I think itās wrong, whichever side of the political spectrum youāre on.) It would need to have happened once to be a genuine reason. It quite obviously hadnāt - if anyone had shown up at his house they would have been immediately arrested for breaking lockdown. I take your point, but not if it happened prior to lockdown (which is what I assumed he was referencing). |
|
|
|
Post by xanady on May 26, 2020 15:43:36 GMT
Stay Alert...there may be drivers with impaired vision driving up and down your local motorway...unbelievable!
|
|
2,761 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on May 26, 2020 15:44:38 GMT
It would need to have happened once to be a genuine reason. It quite obviously hadnāt - if anyone had shown up at his house they would have been immediately arrested for breaking lockdown. I take your point, but not if it happened prior to lockdown (which is what I assumed he was referencing). No, because this is what he said: He indicated that he had had threats of violence because of the story that he had argued against lockdown and in favour of herd immunity. That story broke on 22 March, which was the day before complete lockdown, so he must have been talking about threats made during lockdown. And if there was "a very bad atmosphere around my home", I and my neighbours were oblivious to it. I'm not saying he didn't get threats or insults - but there are Tory MPs and commentators talking about the rabble outside his house this weekend and suggesting it's been like that for weeks, and that's just not true. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 15:47:32 GMT
@jeanhunt you are twisting yourself in knots to try and come up with reasonable justifications for Cummingsā explanations. Itās difficult to do that even taking those explanations at face value, isnāt it, given the simplicity of the guidelines that we were all given, and that he helped write. Give yourself a break: entertain for a moment that the reason the explanations are so ridiculous and hard to justify is that theyāre not true. They were made up after the fact, to fit the irrefutable evidence provided by eye witnesses, with the help of a lawyer (which is why it reads just like a witness statement). It has been designed to manipulate your natural sympathies. Donāt forget, in his wifeās original account of their experience in the Spectator none of this was mentioned. That account describes them emerging out of isolation into a locked-down London. We know theyāve already lied about what happened once. But thatās the thing. Itās not hard at all. A lot about lockdown has been about applying common sense. (Something a lot of people seem to wrestle with, if the reaction to the change to āstay alertā messaging is anything to go by!) It really is as simple as Cummings said yesterday: you either think what he did was reasonable in the circumstances, or you donāt. I was all for him resigning at the weekend - but after listening to his explanation I understood what he did. Others disagree. Thatās fine. Doesnāt make those who are OK with it either wrong or stupid. FWIW, I absolutely think some of the messaging could have been clearer. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 26, 2020 15:47:53 GMT
But at the point when he left anyone showing up at his house to protest would be arrested for breaking lockdown.
Although we can be sure they didnāt, because if they had people would have found out a lot sooner that he wasnāt there!
Itās a post-hoc justification designed to manipulate your sympathies.
It would never have occurred to them to suggest it as reason if that video hadnāt shown up this weekend - which is why it wasnāt part of the original story.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on May 26, 2020 15:53:27 GMT
No, the isolation rules were NOT about applying common sense. Because ācommon senseā is remarkably UNcommon and people can find justifications for all sorts of daft things if left to their own devices.
Because of the extraordinary public health emergency, the isolation rules were absolutes, they were not open to interpretation, they were not about finding a loophole that allowed you to do what you want as long as you were careful.
Whatās more as an advisor to the Government that created not just rules but LAWS severely restricting our liberties, it is more serious that Cummings disregarded them at that the government is now trying to justify it by claiming that acting on āinstinctā and āyour own judgementā was ok. It was not, and that was made abundantly clear by the messaging. Which is why the vast majority of people in far more extreme circumstances did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 15:55:49 GMT
I take your point, but not if it happened prior to lockdown (which is what I assumed he was referencing). No, because this is what he said: He indicated that he had had threats of violence because of the story that he had argued against lockdown and in favour of herd immunity. That story broke on 22 March, which was the day before complete lockdown, so he must have been talking about threats made during lockdown. And if there was "a very bad atmosphere around my home", I and my neighbours were oblivious to it. I'm not saying he didn't get threats or insults - but there are Tory MPs and commentators talking about the rabble outside his house this weekend and suggesting it's been like that for weeks, and that's just not true. Fair enough. Though I would gently point out youāre not there all the time. (It only takes one person or group passing by for less than 5 mins to be threatening, right?) And that some neighbours clearly dislike him, so they at least are technically unreliable sources. āAround my homeā could, I suppose, also be mail (or even digital) sources of harassment also, that can lead you to feel threatened in your home environment (see again those female MPsā experience). Passers-by wouldnāt necessarily be aware of that. Can we all at least agree harassing people of any political persuasion (or none) in the street is unacceptable? Because some vocal people on Twitter who should know better seem to be enjoying the current situation outside Cummingsā home a bit too much! |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on May 26, 2020 15:55:54 GMT
If he truly was being harassed why not reference that straight away.
Why not issue a statement on Friday night saying we'd been harassed in London and the security advice was to leave. We absolutely back the lockdown and appreciate the sacrifices everyone has made but our situation in this case was exceptional due to the safety aspect.
That would have pretty much been it and he could have probably rode out the other breaches.
If you are worried about your safety/privacy why write an article about what you are doing in a national magazine.
It's also very unclear if Number 10 knew he was in Durham, they seemed to suggest today they didn't but again surely they would of if there were security issues.
And what suddenly changed that they were fine to come to London again.
|
|
2,761 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on May 26, 2020 16:01:54 GMT
Can we all at least agree harassing people of any political persuasion (or none) in the street is unacceptable? Because some vocal people on Twitter who should know better seem to be enjoying the current situation outside Cummingsā home a bit too much! I won't argue with that statement. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 16:16:10 GMT
Yes, the kid went to hospital but if theyād been in London heād have just been taken to hospital there. So thereās no difference, really. The trip to Barnard Castle was made when Cummings was no longer infectious. Doing a test route doesnāt seem weird to me. (Eg If Iāve been ill for a period of time, I always take a walk/short bus trip to see if I think my legs will carry me safely back to work the next day.) (the lack of understanding on here about how small children behave would be hilarious if it wasnāt leading to some rather unpleasant comments being made). Are you being serious? Deadly serious? OK then. For the avoidance of doubt, on the few points I highlighted from your post. They took a child, who could potentially have symptoms of covid or has been in close contact with someone they believed could have covid symptoms to a hospital 260+ miles away from where the child actually lived. The exact opposite of what should be done. You know that, no excuses, which is the most confusing thing. But anyway, that's the difference. OK, you may take a short walk or bus trip to see if your legs will carry you. Do you give a piggyback to a family member while you're walking? Or drive the bus full of passengers? I don't think so. That would be incredibly reckless, irresponsible and dangerous. Also, testing your eyesight by driving seems to go against the advice of many medical and driving professionals who said as much yesterday and today. But again, there's no way you don't know that. Seeing a bit of a pattern here. And yes your final point about how small children behave. Totally agree. So Iām expected to believe there were no stops on a 5 hour car journey? OK then. And on your final point that I haven't quoted about driving and childcare. If Mary Wakefield was not comfortable driving, that leaves Cummings as the only driver. If he became seriously ill that would leave them in the most awful predicament. Not worth it in my eyes, stay put. No childcare in London? Well, they didn't even ask, he said so clear as day in his statement. But if they did ask and there was seriously no single family or friend who could help, they should have gone through the local authorities, as Jenny Harries says in her clip about exceptional circumstances (which Dominic Cummings' most certainly were not) which gets conveniently cut off before she mentions going through local authorities for help, not drive 260 miles and live next to your elderly parents and have shouted conversations with them, which the rest of the country couldn't and largely didn't do. 1) They took him to hospital up north because he took ill when they were up north. For (in my view and othersā) the perfectly reasonable fact they had gone north to get potential childcare support they couldnāt get elsewhere. You disagree that this trip was necessary. Thatās your prerogative. It doesnāt make me stupid. 2) Experts say a lot of things, but if you give them a hypothetical scenario youāll be surprised how much theyāll bend! Also: since when do you consult an expert every time youāre a bit unsure how you'll manage in a situation they know about?! eg There are a heck of a lot of people who drink while on medication. I wonder how many of those hypocrites are finger-pointing over this element? Probably quite a few! (Not suggesting thatās you, by the way. Just pointing out the mega levels of hypocrisy generally surrounding this row.) A reasonably short drive to test how you feel before driving further, on quiet roads, with another person along who could drive in an emergency, feels acceptable to me. You disagree. Your prerogative. Doesnāt make me stupid. 3) I agree, it felt unlikely to me too. But if he was asleep they could have done it (they arrived at midnight, remember). And if he was sickening for something, he may have slept more heavily. Did he say they hadnāt asked re childcare? My recollection was that their source of childcare wasnāt available, or something. I read today his wifeās family (London based) had other small children so couldnāt do it - donāt know if thatās true or not. And Iāmsorry, but I struggle to believe any middle-class parent would seriously consider putting their child into the care of their local authority!! |
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on May 26, 2020 16:16:44 GMT
Something I've been wondering a lot is when normal colds start becoming common again in the winter months, how are you supposed to tell the difference between having just a regular cold and Covid? What are you supposed to do? Just isolate and wait for a test even if you end up just having a regular cold? What about the time off work that would require? Also will it be made absolutely clear that people with any cold symptoms need to get tested and isolate until they know? Because if not then you potentially have thousands of people walking around with what they think is just a cough or cold, don't think they need to get tested, and so passing this on to others which would surely then generate another spike?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 16:25:33 GMT
As ever, fun debating with you all but I have a life to lead and my own mental health to think about! Though you may disagree that thatās particularly strong in the first place. ;-)
FWIW, I have no strong feelings either way about Cummings. I admire that he gets things done. I donāt necessarily like how he does it.
I have always hated bullying and harassment. Itās wrong on Cummingsā street and it was equally wrong on Corbynās (a man I do frequently disagree with, just as an example for balance).
Itās a little sad to see it so quickly resorted to here, as well, on occasion - which is why i spoke up with an alternative viewpoint this morning. Iām sure we could all stand around all day on both sides of a fence calling each other stupid. Not sure it will get us very far, though!
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 26, 2020 16:33:03 GMT
He lives round the corner from me, and I regularly walked along his road during my daily exercise. There had been no crowds and no harassment until this weekend. I absolutely don't approve of it now, but to suggest that the scenes on TV now were a regular occurrence leading to his decision to leave London is not the case. Would it have to be a regular occurrence? Lots of female MPs reported feeling threatened after being targeted with unpleasant remarks and heckling, not always sustained. (And they were right to speak out about it, by the way. I think itās wrong, whichever side of the political spectrum youāre on.) He came back a few days later to see how bad it was though so you can ask Dodgy Dom |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on May 26, 2020 16:37:11 GMT
Ah I wondered when we'd reach that point of the discussion when disagreeing with someone is redefined as bullying.
I hope you never suffer actual bullying in your life, it's not pleasant.
And the irony of defending Dominic Cummings of all people while complaining about bullying.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on May 26, 2020 16:39:28 GMT
1) They took him to hospital up north because he took ill when they were up north. ...and part of the point of telling people not to travel was to protect the NHS in other parts of the country from an influx of visitors that they aren't equipped to handle. When there are barely enough beds in each region to cope with the people who actually live there, it's vital in an event like this to stop people from moving away from their primary address. Cummings was part of the team that put together the lockdown rules, and he knew this - and he went ahead and did what he did anyway. That's indefensible. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 26, 2020 16:59:28 GMT
1) They took him to hospital up north because he took ill when they were up north. ...and part of the point of telling people not to travel was to protect the NHS in other parts of the country from an influx of visitors that they aren't equipped to handle. When there are barely enough beds in each region to cope with the people who actually live there, it's vital in an event like this to stop people from moving away from their primary address. Cummings was part of the team that put together the lockdown rules, and he knew this - and he went ahead and did what he did anyway. That's indefensible. I'm liking the post but, like me... you're bullying |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 26, 2020 17:19:30 GMT
Cummingsās account is like a piece of Victorian crotchet - full of holes, But you canāt argue with someone who has acted in a way he thinks is correct and when he was obviously if not precisely in a panic then definitely not 100%. What I take from the scenario is that their child is in need of very special care which only the parents and probably special edu needs people or close relatives can manage. This is very sad and very difficult for them as a family. Of course they are not the only ones with such problems. There are no excuses only explanations. I also take from it that the press, the media, either like someone or they don't probably based on how cooperative that person is with them. Remember Paddy Ashdown? One headline and it was all over, finished. Cos he is a nice guy and knew how to do it proper like. The press acts like a tribe. And unfortunately for Boris this all comes at the trickiest point of the crisis when he needs to steer the ship steadily back out to sea and when we are all pretty fed up anyway. The other transgressions from MPs were earlier when we were still very scared and focused on the loo rolls.
My main concern is that this unfortunate timing for Boris is also one for us as people will now make up their own minds about lockdown and crowding together and so on with the inevitable result of a spiking going on throughout the year and into the Autumn colds and flu period. Or as we say in the business ( and Iām not so forgive me) it aināt over til the fat lady sings and she hasnāt even been born yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 17:27:00 GMT
But thatās the thing. Itās not hard at all. A lot about lockdown has been about applying common sense. Sort of. One of the things that I've found infuriating about this whole situation is how many people have been missing the point of it all. The entire purpose behind everything has been to keep people apart in order to cut off the disease's avenues of transmission. Telling people to stay at home and avoid nonessential travel was a means to an end, not the actual objective, and so there's nothing wrong with travelling as such. But that's not how it was being enforced. The police were, in my opinion, taking things too far: stopping people sitting on park benches, stopping people walking in the countryside, checking shopping to make sure it was essential enough: all things that had nothing to do with breaking the transmission of disease. To many people it felt like we were being placed under house arrest and constantly being watched to make sure we weren't trying to escape from our punishment. So under those circumstances it was grossly inappropriate for one of the most powerful people in the country to use that power to do things that wouldn't have been tolerated if done by the rest of us. Ordinary people have made perfectly safe journeys and done perfectly safe leisure activities and ended up with FPNs. Cummings did something that was probably not legal, uses his position of authority to get away with it, and can't even find it in himself to apologise. That's not the sort of person I want to have a hand in running a country. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on May 26, 2020 17:29:13 GMT
But you canāt argue with someone who has acted in a way he thinks is correct and when he was obviously if not precisely in a panic then definitely not 100%. Yes you can. Plenty of other families have faced a similar situation and found a way to deal with it without endangering other people or breaking the lockdown rules. It is absolutely indefensible for a member of the team who wrote the lockdown rules to break them himself because they're inconvenient for his family. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 26, 2020 17:42:41 GMT
Caitlin Moran makes an excellent point.
|
|
19,780 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 26, 2020 17:44:57 GMT
people will now make up their own minds about lockdown and crowding together and so on with the inevitable result of a spiking going on throughout the year and into the Autumn colds and flu period. Will they though? Even before this, reports of various luminaries prior to DC breaking lockdown did not send me running for the outside. Iām concerned enough about my health, and that of my family to think āyou tosser, Iām staying homeā. I think it does a huge disservice to the population to suggest that this one man breaking rules means everyone will/can break rules. Unless weāre of the opinion that people in this country are a bit stupid. Are they? And as I said earlier, the rule breakers in the population will break rules regardless of DC. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 26, 2020 17:45:05 GMT
Are you being serious? Deadly serious? OK then. For the avoidance of doubt, on the few points I highlighted from your post. They took a child, who could potentially have symptoms of covid or has been in close contact with someone they believed could have covid symptoms to a hospital 260+ miles away from where the child actually lived. The exact opposite of what should be done. You know that, no excuses, which is the most confusing thing. But anyway, that's the difference. OK, you may take a short walk or bus trip to see if your legs will carry you. Do you give a piggyback to a family member while you're walking? Or drive the bus full of passengers? I don't think so. That would be incredibly reckless, irresponsible and dangerous. Also, testing your eyesight by driving seems to go against the advice of many medical and driving professionals who said as much yesterday and today. But again, there's no way you don't know that. Seeing a bit of a pattern here. And yes your final point about how small children behave. Totally agree. So Iām expected to believe there were no stops on a 5 hour car journey? OK then. And on your final point that I haven't quoted about driving and childcare. If Mary Wakefield was not comfortable driving, that leaves Cummings as the only driver. If he became seriously ill that would leave them in the most awful predicament. Not worth it in my eyes, stay put. No childcare in London? Well, they didn't even ask, he said so clear as day in his statement. But if they did ask and there was seriously no single family or friend who could help, they should have gone through the local authorities, as Jenny Harries says in her clip about exceptional circumstances (which Dominic Cummings' most certainly were not) which gets conveniently cut off before she mentions going through local authorities for help, not drive 260 miles and live next to your elderly parents and have shouted conversations with them, which the rest of the country couldn't and largely didn't do. 1) They took him to hospital up north because he took ill when they were up north. For (in my view and othersā) the perfectly reasonable fact they had gone north to get potential childcare support they couldnāt get elsewhere. You disagree that this trip was necessary. Thatās your prerogative. It doesnāt make me stupid. 2) Experts say a lot of things, but if you give them a hypothetical scenario youāll be surprised how much theyāll bend! Also: since when do you consult an expert every time youāre a bit unsure how you'll manage in a situation they know about?! eg There are a heck of a lot of people who drink while on medication. I wonder how many of those hypocrites are finger-pointing over this element? Probably quite a few! (Not suggesting thatās you, by the way. Just pointing out the mega levels of hypocrisy generally surrounding this row.) A reasonably short drive to test how you feel before driving further, on quiet roads, with another person along who could drive in an emergency, feels acceptable to me. You disagree. Your prerogative. Doesnāt make me stupid. 3) I agree, it felt unlikely to me too. But if he was asleep they could have done it (they arrived at midnight, remember). And if he was sickening for something, he may have slept more heavily. Did he say they hadnāt asked re childcare? My recollection was that their source of childcare wasnāt available, or something. I read today his wifeās family (London based) had other small children so couldnāt do it - donāt know if thatās true or not. And Iāmsorry, but I struggle to believe any middle-class parent would seriously consider putting their child into the care of their local authority!! Well Iāve just skimmed through the statement from yesterday and when asked whether he made enquiries in London before heading to Durham, he said no he didn't. He said he didn't think about that seeing as he'd already received an offer from his 17 year old niece. So neither of us know that he couldnāt get support elsewhere because he didn't even check. If he checked and he DID have support in London, the trip to Durham was unnecessary, not to mention breaking lockdown rules. If he checked and DIDN'T have support, then I don't give a damn what class he is, the rules as set out by Jenny Harries were to contact local authorities, and that goes beyond class. So you mean to tell me that doesn't apply to the middle-class or people who work for government? In my eyes, that is no argument and your admittance that there is one rule for them and one rule for us. I don't know your background, but whatever it is, that sentence is very revealing as to your support for Cummings in this situation. I also, in this situation, don't care what experts say in hypothetical scenarios. This was a real scenario, and based on Cummings' statement, they have given their advice. When asked by Kay Burley this morning what you should do if you're worried about covid-19 and eyesight, Michael Gove replied to seek medical advice. So yes, in this situation, he clearly should have consulted a medical expert before his test-drive (don't worry, I wouldn't for a second think you were accusing me of that!). But if he wanted someone with him who could drive in case it went wrong, ok I can accept that. But his child, too? I don't accept that. The supposed child care he went to Durham for was never used. So leave the child with the childcare and test the eyesight? That being said - I don't accept the eyesight test-drive in the first place. If they arrived at midnight, they would have left around 7pm, I guess? I just donāt buy that they could have done that trip in one go. But that could just be me! I know you said you're taking some time away but just in case you do see this, I never for one moment thought or suggested you were stupid. Apologies if it ever came across that way. I find your defense for him rather confusing and I don't understand why or how, but never stupid. I wish you well. |
|
4,986 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on May 26, 2020 17:53:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on May 26, 2020 18:01:31 GMT
Telling the truth about someone is not bullying them, it is merely stating facts.
It baffles me that some people are so easily manipulated when someone declares themselves a victim.
I imagine once quarantine is over they'll all be having Hannibal Lector around for tea...
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 26, 2020 18:08:50 GMT
people will now make up their own minds about lockdown and crowding together and so on with the inevitable result of a spiking going on throughout the year and into the Autumn colds and flu period.Ā Will they though? Even before this, reports of various luminaries prior to DC breaking lockdown did not send me running for the outside. Iām concerned enough about my health, and that of my family to think āyou tosser, Iām staying homeā.Ā I think it does a huge disservice to the population to suggest that this one man breaking rules means everyone will/can break rules. Unless weāre of the opinion that people in this country are a bit stupid. Are they? And as I said earlier, the rule breakers in the population will break rules regardless of DC.Ā Not to create too much of a fuss but the population must be pretty stupid based on the pictures of packed beaches over the weekend. |
|
