Dominic Cummings visited parents during lockdown measures

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

He broke the rules. Sorry, he broke his rules. These are here for reference (published 12 March 2020).

He and you have a strange definition of "safeguarding": putting your child in a metal box for 4 hours with someone who has a deadly disease, for most people, does not make the grade.

The other bizarre thing here is that Cummings has the resources of the Government at his disposal. He could have asked for childcare to be arranged and it would have been done instantly. In fact, the mother of the child in question has a sister living 2 streets away apparently.

You are seemingly so angry not because he is innocent but, exactly as you reveal, he is the High Priest of Brexit ..

Are you a daily mail reader ?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Where was the message “where possible?”. It said if you had symptoms you stay at your main resident - not second homes or alternate accommodation.

I’d absolutely love a Cabinet Minister to get on telly and push these lines. They would increasingly look to be acting in bad faith, at a time they need public trust.

The regulations state:

You should stay at home as much as possible. The reasons you may leave home include:

for work, where you cannot work from homegoing to shops that are permitted to be open - to get things like food and medicine, to exercise or spend time outdoors, any medical need, including to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person.

Originally Posted by ianch99

He broke the rules. Sorry, he broke his rules. These are here for reference (published 12 March 2020).

He and you have a strange definition of "safeguarding": putting your child in a metal box for 4 hours with someone who has a deadly disease, for most people, does not make the grade.

The other bizarre thing here is that Cummings has the resources of the Government at his disposal. He could have asked for childcare to be arranged and it would have been done instantly. In fact, the mother of the child in question has a sister living 2 streets away apparently.

You are seemingly so angry not because he is innocent but, exactly as you reveal, he is the High Priest of Brexit ..

Yes and we all know why you think he is automatically guilty don't we?

He broke no rules because he was safeguarding his son - thus, he did nothing wrong.

It's none of your business who he chose to look after his son. That decision is his and not yours, how dare you decide who should look after his son, mind your own business. You would not tolerate somebody dictating to you what to do with your family, so do not tell others what or how they should manage with theirs when you do not know of their personal circumstances, in particular the childs health.

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The regulations state:

You should stay at home as much as possible. The reasons you may leave home include:

for work, where you cannot work from homegoing to shops that are permitted to be open - to get things like food and medicine, to exercise or spend time outdoors, any medical need, including to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person.

Exactly OB - some people need to open their bloody eyes FFS.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The regulations state:

You should stay at home as much as possible. The reasons you may leave home include:

for work, where you cannot work from homegoing to shops that are permitted to be open - to get things like food and medicine, to exercise or spend time outdoors, any medical need, including to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person.

But as the family were possibly infected by the virus, different rules apply.

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.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...d-19-infection

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What! Are you kidding? Back on 12th April, you were not permitted to take 60-mile round trips for sightseeing or exercise.
And putting a child in a car with two infected adults at the end of March for five hours? Seriously? That's not in the child's interests. And, as a QC and the media have pointed out, that particular trip broke the rules and law.
I'm really hoping that Cummings is honourable enough to do the decent thing today or pulls a great explanation out of the bag. The latter is my preference.

Stop repeating conjecture to me I do not believe the crap written in Mirror or the pathetic leftie Guardian.

"I saw a man who looked like Cummings in Durham".

Yeah and I can say I saw Elvis at my local Tesco's last week. Bullshit!

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

But as the family were possibly infected by the virus, different rules apply.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...d-19-infection

Not when you need to make a decision to safeguard a vulnerable child !!!

Safeguarding the child became the priority and it overrides those set of rules.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The regulations state:

You should stay at home as much as possible. The reasons you may leave home include:

for work, where you cannot work from homegoing to shops that are permitted to be open - to get things like food and medicine, to exercise or spend time outdoors, any medical need, including to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person.

The purpose and intent of that is clearly to provide care for or help to another person in their home. That does not fit your scenario. He did not travel 260 miles because assistance was not available in London. He did it because it was his preference and apparently when he and his wife were symptomatic. The government guidance for that scenario was clear - to self isolate in your primary residence for 14 days as a family.

This vulnerable child situation is clutching at the end of a very thin straw. There's hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children out there - none facilitating 260 mile journeys to second homes. It's also broadly irrelevant that situation has been dealt with by the police having spoken to a family member - consistent with the regulations which don't automatically lead to fixed penalties or arrests.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Stop repeating conjecture to me I do not believe the crap written in Mirror or the pathetic leftie Guardian.

"I saw a man who looked like Cummings in Durham".

Yeah and I can say I saw Elvis at my local Tesco's last week. Bullshit!

The 12th April story witness has been checked out and the story has not been denied.
Let's hope that Cummings has a full and frank answer to this mess.

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Not when you need to make a decision to safeguard a vulnerable child !!!

Safeguarding the child became the priority and it overrides those set of rules.

If you can provide a link to the rules that says this then QCs, MPs, the CofE, scientists, the press and everyone else will shut up about it
OB has tried but he provided to a link for those without CV-19 symptoms.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The 12th April story witness has been checked out and the story has not been denied.
Let's hope that Cummings has a full and frank answer to this mess.

Didn't I just say to you not to repeat the bullshit and conjecture to me?

What part of this do you not understand Andrew?

It's utter lies by pathetic Activists, they saw him but didn't think to take any pictures... Thus, no actual solid proof, just one word against anothers.

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:06 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

This vulnerable child situation is clutching at the end of a very thin straw. There's hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children out there - none facilitating 260 mile journeys to second homes. It's also broadly irrelevant that situation has been dealt with by the police having spoken to a family member - consistent with the regulations which don't automatically lead to fixed penalties or arrests.

You are always clutching at straws, who are you to lecture other people on this?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

I've heard a rumour which I shall not repeat about personal circumstances that might make people more sympathetic although it would still raise the same questions.

We've all got personal circumstances. My frail mother has been in hospital the last week after a fall (not ideal timing), but I was unable to visit. Still can't go round and see now she's thankfully home as I'm sticking to the rules, as most if the country has. A sob story about kids or dead Uncles won't wash.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

He broke the rules. Sorry, he broke his rules. These are here for reference (published 12 March 2020).

He and you have a strange definition of "safeguarding": putting your child in a metal box for 4 hours with someone who has a deadly disease, for most people, does not make the grade.

The other bizarre thing here is that Cummings has the resources of the Government at his disposal. He could have asked for childcare to be arranged and it would have been done instantly. In fact, the mother of the child in question has a sister living 2 streets away apparently.

You are seemingly so angry not because he is innocent but, exactly as you reveal, he is the High Priest of Brexit ..

... and you are so convinced he is guilty because he's "the High Priest of Brexit".

I've no admiration for Cummings but his family decision on how to protect his child is where I side with him. You lot give him no quarter because of Brexit - I'm sure of that. Witch hunt and revenge.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

Didn't I just say to you not to repeat the bullshit and conjecture to me?

What part of this do you not understand Andrew?

It's utter lies by pathetic Activists, they saw him but didn't think to take any pictures... Thus, no actual solid proof, just one word against anothers.

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:06 ----------



You are always clutching at straws, who are you to lecture other people on this?

I assume the Daily Mail are also clutching at straws? This isn't a remainer conspiracy although it's a cheap and lazy way to dismiss opposing arguments without substantive reply.

I fully expect Dominic Cummings to apologise in some way, expressing an error of judgement and claim to have been acting in good faith. What then? Will he just be lying? Or will he have actually used a sense of perspective notably absent from some on this thread.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... and you are so convinced he is guilty because he's "the High Priest of Brexit".

I've no admiration for Cummings but his family decision on how to protect his child is where I side with him. You lot give him no quarter because of Brexit - I'm sure of that. Witch hunt and revenge.

Just to point out a lot of Brexiters aren't happy either. This has crossed the divide.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Just to point out a lot of Brexiters aren't happy either. This has crossed the divide.

Indeed, it's those clutching at straws to defend him exercising a lazy way out. He's committed an error of judgement against the spirit of, and likely the letter of, the law.

I expect him to acknowledge this shortly.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed, it's those clutching at straws to defend him exercising a lazy way out. He's committed an error of judgement against the spirit of, and likely the letter of, the law.

I expect him to acknowledge this shortly.

As you know, my friend, I don't clutch at straws. I have a definite point of view based on what I might do in similar circumstances.

However, "error of judgement" might be somewhere we could meet on this as there is blurring as to legal interpretation.

Originally Posted by Mr K

We've all got personal circumstances. My frail mother has been in hospital the last week after a fall (not ideal timing), but I was unable to visit. Still can't go round and see now she's thankfully home as I'm sticking to the rules, as most if the country has. A sob story about kids or dead Uncles won't wash.

You sticking to the rules, I doubt it, that just doesn't wash with me at all given at times, you struggle to stick to the forums rules.

---------- Post added at 15:32 ---------- Previous post was at 15:30 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed, it's those clutching at straws to defend him exercising a lazy way out. He's committed an error of judgement against the spirit of, and likely the letter of, the law.

I expect him to acknowledge this shortly.

It's nothing to do with laziness, it's nothing to do with errors of judgement, he made the right call for his vulnerable son. Thus, no rules broken, despite how many times you erroneously say so.