Dominic Cummings visited parents during lockdown measures

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I disagree with some of his actions, and a bit doubtful about some of his explanations, but all in all, I thought it was a good explanation.

But Dominic Cummings just admitted breaking the lockdown rules three times. None of us was allowed to do any of the things he did as we all abided by the strict lockdown rules.

You cannot have rules for everybody and then somebody decides personally he wants to break it.

Originally Posted by Chris

I still think they’ve extracted maximum distraction value out of the story before making any serious attempt to shut it down though.

Do you think this was a distraction attempt or that they botched it then? I have seen some conspiracy stuff on twitter that this is a 'dead cat' but I can't see how this story is good for the government.

---------- Post added at 16:57 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

But Dominic Cummings just admitted breaking the lockdown rules three times. None of us was allowed to do any of the things he did as we abided by the strict lockdown rules.

The hospitalisation one is unquestionably fine so it's really only twice (once IMO since I don't think he 'drive to test my eyesight' is that bad if true).

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------

Although actually putting your wife and kids in the car for a 30 mins drive to test if you can see is a novel idea....

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Most people in the same vehicle would be, yes.

But you're ignoring why he needed to go to the Durham area.

Journalists now trying to get CCTV of every service station going up to Durham.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

Mr Cummings et al are doing exactly that: dictating what to do with your family. I think we have entered a parallel reality It is very much my business what he does if the individual in question is part of the Government telling me what I should do. Less of the preaching please.

It is interesting that your definition of "safeguarding" is to lock someone in a car for 4+ hours with a person who has a deadly pandemic.

Daily Mail journalist is tearing into him

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

Journalists now trying to get CCTV of every service station going up to Durham.

Some decent questioning from the last 2 journo's.

[mrmistoffelees]

‘I drove to Barnard Castle to test my eyesight’

Of course he did....

[ianch99]

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.

Really? Don't be so lazy, read the previous posts. I did not introduce Brexit into this.

---------- Post added at 17:19 ---------- Previous post was at 17:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The 4½ hour journey is neither here nor there; one hour? two hours? three hours? 260 miles. Why bring the distance into it?

The distance is a relevant point: the further you travel, while infectious, the more risk you represent. If you breakdown or have an accident, you risk the first responders attending the scene. If you stop for a convenience break, you risk infected those people sharing the facilities you use, etc.

This sort of stuff is just plain obvious and even with the Government's poor messaging, most of the country gets it. I'm surprised you do not?

Originally Posted by Damien

Do you think this was a distraction attempt or that they botched it then? I have seen some conspiracy stuff on twitter that this is a 'dead cat' but I can't see how this story is good for the government.

He’s a political adviser, not an elected representative, and it is now explicitly on the public record that BoJo neither knew of, nor approved, the trip. It’s hard to see what the long-term damage can possibly be here - whereas forensic focus on strategic and tactical decisions taken by ministers over the last 5 months has the potential to cause serious reputational damage to those who will have to face the electorate on their records, even if that election is over 4 years away.

The Press are taking this very personally because Cummings holds them in contempt and they see it as a chance to settle scores. The Left is sticking the boot in because it’s their first real chance to unleash unrestricted, thermonuclear self-righteous fury on the Tories after months of enforced restraint in the face of a national crisis. But what’s really telling is the number of Tories who are also prepared to go for him. Don’t don’t underestimate a Tory MP’s instinct for self-preservation. If they thought this was an issue of basic competence reflecting on the government, and on the man who just won them a landslide, they wouldn’t be out to get Cummings right now. That they feel safe in doing so should tell you everything you need to know about what’s really going on here.

[Mr K]

A lot of umming and ahhing and his nose has definitely grown longer....

Do they have a good Specsavers in Barnard Castle ?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

First part of your point, yes he clearly did, it is irrelevant how many people live in one city like London, if you have kids you don't just entrust them to anybody. What he did, that is not against the law. Safeguarding of a young child took priority.

All the other points you raise are conjecture. Allegedly this, one witness saw that, where are the photos, where is the video evidence?

I can say I saw Elton John walking down my road yesterday, saying it and proving it, are two different things.

They saw sweet FA because it's bullshit.

I am still waiting for you to prove his guilt, not spin the media mantra which is most certainly not evidence of any guilt whatsoever!

As I said innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason. We do not do trial by media in this country and it's utterly sad how people follow the news like lost sheep.

Such bullshit , that he himself admits it happened.

As before, the childcare I could give you (whilst not breaking the rules, you could argue morally it goes against what the country as a whole was trying to achieve)

I’d like to see anyone try to defend his excuse for driving from Durham to Barnard Castle.

There we have it. He’s innocent and did right thing, under the circumstances.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

There we have it. He’s innocent and did right thing, under the circumstances.

Guilty as hell and a habitual liar like his boss.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Please tell you don't have children

I'm not sure what relevance that is? I'm just going by the points in the quote that stated the child was hospitalised. Surely then the drive was pointless if that was the outcome? I don't have a wife but if I did, I wouldn't drive her 260 miles when she was ill and throwing up.