Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

If anyone is interested these are the regulations

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

Questions to me seem to be a) was it reasonably necessary in the circumstances for him to move house b) was his moving in order to provide care c) did he have any other reasonable excuse for the journey.

If the answer to any is yes than what he did was lawful . If there is doubt it'll be resolved in his favour

 

As for b - I don’t see how it could be. Surely the whole point of his argument is that he couldn’t provide care while ill. Why couldn’t his sister or whoever drive to pick up the child so Cummings could avoid breaking the law? 


Also, the exemption allowing people to leave the home to provide care states to provide care to a vulnerable person. Vulnerable person is defined in regulation 1(c) - over 70, pregnant or under 70 with a specified underlying condition. So I don’t think this exemption would apply here either.

C - possibly, but I don’t think people will have that. If he can’t point to one of the specified exceptions permitted by legislation and instead relies on a general “other reasonable excuse” exemption then he is basically saying people can pick and choose when to bother sticking to the lockdown or not. 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Surfer said:

It's 4.10pm ....

Maybe it is just me, but if you call a press conference for 4pm (in the Downing St garden of all places) and you can't be bothered to turn up on time isn't that more evidence of the kind of self-centered arrogance that this whole issue is about ...?

He has a large part of the country and media on tenterhooks...just waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

He has a large part of the country and media on tenterhooks...just waiting.

Have they gone to your rose garden by mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ricardo said:

Have they gone to your rose garden by mistake?

Nothing shows humility more than rocking up 30 minutes late to give your apology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ricardo said:

Have they gone to your rose garden by mistake?

Last minute shave perhaps?

New tee shirt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sonyc said:

Last minute shave perhaps?

New tee shirt?

Spraying the black fly and rust I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Last minute shave perhaps?

New tee shirt?

Roadworks on the A1

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackanory.......what a total crock of made up ****e! He should have resigned honourably to protect Bumbling Boris! This is now really messy and going to get worse!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No apology but he has read out a long statement to cover up any cracks (saying happy Easter for example could be to the retired chemistry teacher).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Jackanory.......what a total crock of made up ****e! He should have resigned honourably to protect Bumbling Boris! This is now really messy and going to get worse!

So if you are worried about your eyesite, put all your family in the car and drive 30 miles is an appropriate eye test??

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of Sir Norman Fry off Little Britain.

"....unfortunatley I tripped over at exactly the same time the young man's pants had fallen down."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Herman said:

Reminds me of Sir Norman Fry off Little Britain.

"....unfortunatley I tripped over at exactly the same time the young man's pants had fallen down."

Yes....reminded me ....."I was searching for a Murray mint in the glovebox when I accidentally entered the constituent"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got in from work so missed the lovely misunderstood Mr Cummins . I hope he has allayed all the worriess of the general public that feared for his health after his exhausting mission of mercy.  I'm sure he is repentant  and suitably  chastened.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aggy said:

The moving house bit means selling yours and buying a new one - not just nipping down to your second home because you feel like it. 

You are quite possibly correct that it was intended to cover moving house because you had no choice.  What was intended though is not as important as what was written.   Moving house when reasonable necessary is an accepted reason, there is no further qualification.  

The fact that it was later qualified is proof of intention true, but also proof that it wasnt qualified in the first place.

I've  no interest in discussing the morals of this but I'd be surprised if he gets prosecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

He knows all his dates around Durham but not the ones talking to Johnson (even though last week).

An incredible announcement and statement. 

My gosh, this is painful to watch ...time for a time out.

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bet is lost. There is no chance he will get the push.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BigFish said:

So if you are worried about your eyesite, put all your family in the car and drive 30 miles is an appropriate eye test??

Leaving aside the question of going up north in general, the thing about that hilariously absurd Barnard Castle excuse is that it is a clear admission that with that excursion he he broke the lockdown rules. So if that was what he told Johnson before Johnson went on TV and said Cummings had acted entirely legally then Johnson was lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ricardo said:

The bet is lost. There is no chance he will get the push.

 

Not sure Ricardo, power of the press and people, this has made it ten times worse! He will get hounded till he will be asked to resign to protect the government. Limit the damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

He knows all his dates around Durham but not the ones talking to Johnson (even though last week)

To quote Judge Judy " you dont need a good memory...if you're telling the truth".

Another gem from JJ.... " dont pee on my leg and then tell me its raining ".

Both of which seem to apply to Mr Cummins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You are quite possibly correct that it was intended to cover moving house because you had no choice.  What was intended though is not as important as what was written.   Moving house when reasonable necessary is an accepted reason, there is no further qualification.  

The fact that it was later qualified is proof of intention true, but also proof that it wasnt qualified in the first place.

I've  no interest in discussing the morals of this but I'd be surprised if he gets prosecuted.

I doubt he’ll be prosecuted either, but I am interested in the morality of it when he is advising the PM.

Even he hasn’t tried to argue that he was just reasonably “moving house”, instead using some young child exemption which doesn’t appear to be anywhere expressly in writing.

Edit: also it hasn’t been qualified later or amended. The newer regs just brought in additional exemptions as part of the first stage of lifting of lockdown. Previously you could move house where reasonably necessary, now you can still do that, but also go to estate agents, house viewings etc.

 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PurpleCanary said:

Leaving aside the question of going up north in general, the thing about that hilariously absurd Barnard Castle excuse is that it is a clear admission that with that excursion he he broke the lockdown rules. So if that was what he told Johnson before Johnson went on TV and said Cummings had acted entirely legally then Johnson was lying.

Add to this, if he’s saying his eye sight was poor, he put his 4 year old son in the car and drove an hour! What parent would put his child at risk! Surely he’d leave his son and wife at home and drive round the block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Indy said:

Add to this, if he’s saying his eye sight was poor, he put his 4 year old son in the car and drove an hour! What parent would put his child at risk! Surely he’d leave his son and wife at home and drive round the block.

You'd think so, yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Indy said:

Add to this, if he’s saying his eye sight was poor, he put his 4 year old son in the car and drove an hour! What parent would put his child at risk! Surely he’d leave his son and wife at home and drive round the block.

Tested his eyes by putting his child in a car, stopping at an isolated river bank, sitting around there for a bit until he got spotted, droving to a forest, playing there for a bit until he got spotted again and then went home. Don’t you test your eyes like that as well?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of straw clutching but he's  not going in my opinion.

You can get 7-4  on him going by July and 1-3  after and that speaks volumes to me.

This is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which account is the most convincing?

Barnard Castle or Pizza Express?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Aggy said:

As for b - I don’t see how it could be. Surely the whole point of his argument is that he couldn’t provide care while ill. Why couldn’t his sister or whoever drive to pick up the child so Cummings could avoid breaking the law? 


Also, the exemption allowing people to leave the home to provide care states to provide care to a vulnerable person. Vulnerable person is defined in regulation 1(c) - over 70, pregnant or under 70 with a specified underlying condition. So I don’t think this exemption would apply here either.

C - possibly, but I don’t think people will have that. If he can’t point to one of the specified exceptions permitted by legislation and instead relies on a general “other reasonable excuse” exemption then he is basically saying people can pick and choose when to bother sticking to the lockdown or not. 

Schedule 1 defines vulnerable groups as including those you have stated. The qualifier 'includes' suggests the list is not exhaustive.  No reason it should not include a four year old.

I'm not getting in a debate about the morals or reasonableness of his actions but if I was his lawyer if probably go straight to these two exemptions and bundle anything else into an argument under the residual grounds for travel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ricardo said:

 

This is over.

Not on here it isn't. Pages and pages to run yet. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When in a hole stop digging.

So many bad decisions here. It unravels when you analyse his story being played for sympathy.

We do have to make judgments. You should go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...