Corona Virus main thread

[Van wink 2,994]

Just now, Herman said:

Premature indeed.

 

They haven’t got all the tracers in place, I can assure you!

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

8 minutes ago, Herman said:

 

Maitlis was spot on. Nothing to be ashamed of. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. It's the correct thing to do.

Johnson and this government

Can't tell right from wrong 

Zero integrity 

Zero moral authority.

Zero leadership.

 

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I don't have to assure you of anything as you made the accusation so back it up with evidence. A deeply offensive lie posted by you so stop squirming your way round the matter.

Now i see i am defending Cummings which i assume is based on me saying that even if BJ and Cummings resigned Labour are still not getting into power anytime soon ? That is me defending Cummings in your book apparently, yeah righto whatever.

As for the trip to your brother you broke the guidance end of.

 

Nope

Yep

Nope

[BigFish 1,986]

5 minutes ago, Herman said:

Premature indeed.

 

Deeply depressing that the UK has elected a man as PM that would lie about this in front of the Liason Committee just to distract from Cummings failings

[Bill 1,788]

"The media outrage is fading away a bit like the virus atm, the difference is that the virus will come back but I'm not sure that this particular Cummings outrage will. "

 

Where the number of Tory MPs demanding that Cummings goes continues to grow - even including two whips

And there is no shortage of comment in the media

poor hand crank, so desperate for attention he has to resort to pretending to be some rightwing nutjob

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

Just have Bill. On that day the BOE reduced interest rates to 0.25%. Your point is exactly??! You know perfectly well that Osbornes promise of an immediate 'emergency' budget was proved by events to be one of the most disgraceful threats to the British people ever to be spouted by a member of HM Government. No such budget has ever been forthcoming. Do try and keep up please! 

err, and the rest

as to Osborne had had left the Treasury

quite difficult to have a budget when you are not Chancellor some might think

[Bill 1,788]

9 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Deeply depressing that the UK has elected a man as PM that would lie about this in front of the Liason Committee just to distract from Cummings failings

Deeply unsurprising that numpties would elect man as MP who lies

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bill

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

We have had four days to talk this one out. We have seen that the Government have their tin hats on hoping the flak will stop. For whatever reason, they want him to remain as adviser. I don't condone but understand that.

What I don't understand is why some posters are using legalities to reinforce their arguments. It has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the public's opinion.

When the public were allowed to use their judgement and decided to leave the EU by 51.9%, we were told by the PM, the public had given them a mandate.

Even though there has been no legal and binding vote, public opinion has indicated by a much larger percentage that Cummings should go.

In this matter, the public's opinion is being ignored and Boris has chosen his own mandate.

[Herman 9,712]

8 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Deeply depressing that the UK has elected a man as PM that would lie about this in front of the Liason Committee just to distract from Cummings failings

Deeply depressing that they are still cheering for him and making excuses for his slapheaded sociopathic sidekick.

[Bill 1,788]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

We have had four days to talk this one out. We have seen that the Government have their tin hats on hoping the flak will stop. For whatever reason, they want him to remain as adviser. I don't condone but understand that.

What I don't understand is why some posters are using legalities to reinforce their arguments. It has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the public's opinion.

When the public were allowed to use their judgement and decided to leave the EU by 51.9%, we were told by the PM, the public had given them a mandate.

Even though there has been no legal and binding vote, public opinion has indicated by a much larger percentage that Cummings should go.

In this matter, the public's opinion is being ignored and Boris has chosen his own mandate.

agree with the rest KG

but it is not the government retaining Cummings as he is a Johnson appointee, and so is not accountable or sackable by them

and that is not a pedantic view as it suggests that Johnson does not have the ability to remove Cummings

which begs the question of who is in charge ... of Cummings

[Bill 1,788]

412 deaths announced - doesn't sound like the death toll is falling as was claimed yesterday

how many will have contracted the virus after the last few days free for all ?

and after the latest back track on test and trace this shambles is not improving

in fact it is a.............................................Domnishambles

err, that is a joke (for the not too bright righties) 😍

[Indy 3,283]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

412 deaths announced - doesn't sound like the death toll is falling as was claimed yesterday

how many will have contracted the virus after the last few days free for all ?

and after the latest back track on test and trace this shambles is not improving

in fact it is a.............................................Domnishambles

err, that is a joke (for the not too bright righties) 😍

That’s not strictly true Bill, not all deaths over the weekend are registered so today is catch up day for the three day weekend, more accurate figure would be to take the last four day average.

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

That’s not strictly true Bill, not all deaths over the weekend are registered so today is catch up day for the three day weekend, more accurate figure would be to take the last four day average.

I am aware of that, and also that the numbers are (thankfully) decreasing, but my concern was the effect the previous numbers were having on folk - rather than it being any castigation of the government.

There now seems a mood that it is all over barring an ever dwindling number of deaths so precautions need not be heeded.

[Aggy 752]

5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

So if 'reasonable' is not a matter of opinion what is it? How do I measure what is reasonable? And who should decide other than the decision maker?

I have no idea if the Cummings statement was drafted by a lawyer or not and nor do I have any interest in who drafted it. What I  care about is whether or not the contents are true. The day we refuse the accused access to a lawyer is a dark day indeed.

A few posts whirling around about this, so apologies if I’m repeating what has already been said. Also this is a lot longer reading back through it than I thought when typing so apologies again!

Reasonableness isn’t based on the decision maker’s own opinion as to what is reasonable or not. Nor is it correct per se to say that it’s what is reasonable in the opinion of the judge, or what’s reasonable in the mind of any one individual juror. It’s not quite as simple either as saying that reasonableness is what the ‘average’ person in the same circumstances would deem to be reasonable - it factors in some degree of ‘experience’ and what is known by the person as well. And there is usually a range of reasonableness. 

So as a (rather poor, off the cuff) example (go with it), if a person was asked to take twenty 30-yard freekicks into an open net but with a wall, what would a reasonable effort be in terms of goals scored? In perfect weather, no wind or rain.

Well, if you had never kicked a ball, then 0-2 might be reasonable. If you played a bit as a kid, got to a decent amateur level, then maybe 5-10 is reasonable. If you’re a premier league footballer who is the designated freekick taker for your club and you spend three hours a day four times a week practicing free kicks, 17-20 might be reasonable.

But if the professional footballer got 0, that would be unreasonable - they must have been messing around. If there were extenuating circumstances such as gale force winds then it might be reasonable for everyone to get 0.

So reasonableness is (in basic terms) what range of things would be reasonable for the the average person with similar ‘experience’/with the same knowledge and training. And whilst that is to an extent formed by the interpretation of a judge or jury, it is pretty much as objective as deciding whether any other “fact” in a trial is a fact or not. Imagine bringing in five designated free kick takers from prem teams between 8-12th (so roughly same quality). Would any of them say that 0/20 was reasonable? No. One might say 18-20 is reasonable and another might say 15-18 is reasonable - so a range of reasonableness but some things clearly unreasonable.

As to the legislation (and again apologies if i’m repeating here)... the regs say you cannot leave the house without reasonable excuse. There is a list of reasonable excuses. Here it says “a reasonable excuse includes...”. BB I think you and I discussed the use of “includes” vs “including but not limited to” in respect of a different part of the regs, but here I don’t think it’s entirely clear whether it’s exhaustive or not. 

I can’t see any reference to children in the regs as a reasonable excuse and can’t really see how you can even try to squeeze it into one of the existing listed reasonable excuses. So if the list of reasonable excuses is exhaustive, I can’t see DC’s excuse was reasonable.

However, I think the list is probably - on the drafting - intended not to be exhaustive. So there could be other reasonable excuses which are not listed in the regs.

 

So I think the questions, from a legal rather than political or ‘moral’ point of view, boil down to (1) was driving 260 miles to stay in a cottage near his parents a reasonable excuse for leaving his home, and (2) was driving thirty miles to Barnard Castle to ‘test your eyes’, stop for a walk down the river bank, then play in a forest, a reasonable excuse to leave his home, in both cases based on all the circumstances?

 

(1) - Personally, I think it’s difficult to argue that it was reasonable for someone with no symptoms (and whose wife had some symptoms of covid but not the main two - cough or fever), who was a senior government advisor, who was probably one of the main architects of the “stay home” campaign, and who probably had a large network of people in London who could have looked after his child if the worst came to pass (he said he didn’t even make enquiries), to leave his home on the basis he was worried his kid might effectively be abandoned in its own home. But there are a lot of ‘probablys’ there which would need verifying if it was in an actual court. If he did genuinely have no one in London, and he had genuine reason to believe he was about to become ill then maybe it’s within a range of reasonableness. 

 

However, I simply don’t see any extenuating circumstances for number 2. Testing your eyes by going for a 30 mile drive with your wife and kids then having a walk by a river and play in a forest is not a reasonable excuse for leaving your home under the current regulations. Had it have been a quick drive, alone, to the bottom of the drive of his country estate then I might accept that was maybe a reasonable “eye test” before a long drive back for work. But it wasn’t that.

 

 

 

[Indy 3,283]

Just now, Bill said:

I am aware of that, and also that the numbers are (thankfully) decreasing, but my concern was the effect the previous numbers were having on folk - rather than it being any castigation of the government.

There now seems a mood that it is all over barring an ever dwindling number of deaths so precautions need not be heeded.

I’m not sure the mood is that at all Bill, certainly not from my area. Still very much distancing, not many breaking the rules, but the general numbers are falling and the world has to start to pay for all the debt built up. Just people having a sense of relief at numbers getting better.

The only people not heading the precautions are political advisors!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

30 minutes ago, Bill said:

agree with the rest KG

but it is not the government retaining Cummings as he is a Johnson appointee, and so is not accountable or sackable by them

and that is not a pedantic view as it suggests that Johnson does not have the ability to remove Cummings

which begs the question of who is in charge ... of Cummings

So that begs the question, what is the role of the Cabinet Secretary? Surely he advises the PM as well. And should be telling him of the feeling at large.

[Bill 1,788]

Well the various places I was at over the w/e would contradict that, as would the pics in the media. As to the debt that is rather a non story when you realise who thius money is owed to... basically us.

As to Aggy (above) the real question here is what Cummings thought. If he thought his actions were reasonable and therefore could be justified then why the need for the various attempts to cover it up. Sure, if nothing was said then he could count himself lucky that he had got away with it.

But with this it is a case of both mens rea as well as actus reus.

That he knew before he set out that what he was doing was 'wrong' was the reason for the cover up, which was in full swing by mid April when his wife wrote up the lies for the Spectator.

An example being that over the weekend (ish) a Tory MP had a party at his house for his wife with guests. The police attended, two guests left... and that was that. No major complaint and no more said ie no lying via a cover up.

If he was not knowingly guilty there would have been no need for a cover up..... it is as simple as that.

[Bill 1,788]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So that begs the question, what is the role of the Cabinet Secretary? Surely he advises the PM as well. And should be telling him of the feeling at large.

Therein lies the question I have been consistently putting - and what that was raised at today's liaison meeting.

What actually are Cummings terms of reference as from what I can gather they seem to be a 'disrupter8 at large' Allowed to attend whatever meeting he likes, wander in Parliament as he wishes and remove the Chancellors own staff.

That is not an advisor to Johnson. That is someone who has an authority owed to someone(s) beyond Parliament ie democratic control - hence Johnson not being able to remove him

 

* yo get down with that hip new jive Daddio

[Barbe bleu 812]

42 minutes ago, Aggy said:

A few posts whirling around about this, so apologies if I’m repeating what has already been said. Also this is a lot longer reading back through it than I thought when typing so apologies again!

Reasonableness isn’t based on the decision maker’s own opinion as to what is reasonable or not. Nor is it correct per se to say that it’s what is reasonable in the opinion of the judge, or what’s reasonable in the mind of any one individual juror. It’s not quite as simple either as saying that reasonableness is what the ‘average’ person in the same circumstances would deem to be reasonable - it factors in some degree of ‘experience’ and what is known by the person as well. And there is usually a range of reasonableness. 

So as a (rather poor, off the cuff) example (go with it), if a person was asked to take twenty 30-yard freekicks into an open net but with a wall, what would a reasonable effort be in terms of goals scored? In perfect weather, no wind or rain.

Well, if you had never kicked a ball, then 0-2 might be reasonable. If you played a bit as a kid, got to a decent amateur level, then maybe 5-10 is reasonable. If you’re a premier league footballer who is the designated freekick taker for your club and you spend three hours a day four times a week practicing free kicks, 17-20 might be reasonable.

But if the professional footballer got 0, that would be unreasonable - they must have been messing around. If there were extenuating circumstances such as gale force winds then it might be reasonable for everyone to get 0.

So reasonableness is (in basic terms) what range of things would be reasonable for the the average person with similar ‘experience’/with the same knowledge and training. And whilst that is to an extent formed by the interpretation of a judge or jury, it is pretty much as objective as deciding whether any other “fact” in a trial is a fact or not. Imagine bringing in five designated free kick takers from prem teams between 8-12th (so roughly same quality). Would any of them say that 0/20 was reasonable? No. One might say 18-20 is reasonable and another might say 15-18 is reasonable - so a range of reasonableness but some things clearly unreasonable.

As to the legislation (and again apologies if i’m repeating here)... the regs say you cannot leave the house without reasonable excuse. There is a list of reasonable excuses. Here it says “a reasonable excuse includes...”. BB I think you and I discussed the use of “includes” vs “including but not limited to” in respect of a different part of the regs, but here I don’t think it’s entirely clear whether it’s exhaustive or not. 

I can’t see any reference to children in the regs as a reasonable excuse and can’t really see how you can even try to squeeze it into one of the existing listed reasonable excuses. So if the list of reasonable excuses is exhaustive, I can’t see DC’s excuse was reasonable.

However, I think the list is probably - on the drafting - intended not to be exhaustive. So there could be other reasonable excuses which are not listed in the regs.

 

So I think the questions, from a legal rather than political or ‘moral’ point of view, boil down to (1) was driving 260 miles to stay in a cottage near his parents a reasonable excuse for leaving his home, and (2) was driving thirty miles to Barnard Castle to ‘test your eyes’, stop for a walk down the river bank, then play in a forest, a reasonable excuse to leave his home, in both cases based on all the circumstances?

 

(1) - Personally, I think it’s difficult to argue that it was reasonable for someone with no symptoms (and whose wife had some symptoms of covid but not the main two - cough or fever), who was a senior government advisor, who was probably one of the main architects of the “stay home” campaign, and who probably had a large network of people in London who could have looked after his child if the worst came to pass (he said he didn’t even make enquiries), to leave his home on the basis he was worried his kid might effectively be abandoned in its own home. But there are a lot of ‘probablys’ there which would need verifying if it was in an actual court. If he did genuinely have no one in London, and he had genuine reason to believe he was about to become ill then maybe it’s within a range of reasonableness. 

 

However, I simply don’t see any extenuating circumstances for number 2. Testing your eyes by going for a 30 mile drive with your wife and kids then having a walk by a river and play in a forest is not a reasonable excuse for leaving your home under the current regulations. Had it have been a quick drive, alone, to the bottom of the drive of his country estate then I might accept that was maybe a reasonable “eye test” before a long drive back for work. But it wasn’t that.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with most of this. 

I wasnt trying  to suggest that a case should be on the whim of a judge or juror.  Of course the case should be judged as objectively as possible but to suggest that this is black and white or that there is a form of strict liability is, in my lay opinion,  going too far.

Agree that the mental element is likely relevant and that the experience and attributes are relevant (though of course this is not a law on technical matters so there are unlikely to be much in the experience or attributes that would lead to different conclusions for different people- mental capacity excepted)

Ultimately I see that this comes down to the decision maker looking at the act, hearing the reason and deciding whether or not it sounds legit. At its heart  this is a matter of applying common sense. Wrap it up however you like but it is a matter of, guided, opinion .

I still feel that Cummings could argue the 'moving home', 'care for a vulnerable person' and 'other' excuses, though I most profess to not knowing what to make of whether or not a child is vulnerable as you do correctly point to the differing uses of 'includes' in the regs. Regardless, I would say that a *genuine* need to travel for care of a child in case the worst happens does seem reasonable to me even if  not on the list

I'm not going to comment on the reasonableness of his excuses except to say that the second incident 'bernard castle' does appear to be both the least serious and the hardest to justify with reference to the law or advice. 

But he still won't be prosecuted...

Edited May 27, 2020 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

8 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I don't disagree with most of this. 

I wasnt trying  to suggest that a case should be on the whim of a judge or juror.  Of course the case should be judged as objectively as possible but to suggest that this is black and white or that there is a form of strict liability is, in my lay opinion,  going too far.

Agree that the mental element is likely relevant and that the experience and attributes are relevant (though of course this is not a law on technical matters so there are unlikely to be much in the experience or attributes that would lead to different conclusions for different people- mental capacity excepted)

Ultimately I see that this comes down to the decision maker looking at the act, hearing the reason and deciding whether or not it sounds legit. At its heart  this is a matter of applying common sense. Wrap it up however you like but it is a matter of, guided, opinion .

I still feel that Cummings could argue the 'moving home', 'care for a vulnerable person' and 'other' excuses, though I most profess to not knowing what to make of whether or not a child is vulnerable as you do correctly point to the differing uses of 'includes' in the regs. Regardless, I would say that a *genuine* need to travel for care of a child in case the worst happens does seem reasonable to me even if  not on the list

I'm not going to comment on the reasonableness of his excuses except to say that the second incident 'bernard castle' does appear to be both the least serious and the hardest to justify with reference to the law or advice. 

But he still won't be prosecuted...

Everybody can and will make weak excuses why their own little trip is necessary ... even if it was just for mental health.

Cummings and Johnson are now simply frauds in the eyes of most people on this.

[Bill 1,788]

"I wasnt trying  to suggest that a case should be on the whim of a judge or juror.  Of course the case should be judged objectively but to suggest that this is black and white or that there is a form of strict liability is, in my play opinion,  going too far. ''

that is just meaningless waffle that you have stuffed with various legal sounding terms , which still make no sense  - as does not the rest. So I have condensed it for others

 

 'I am a confirmed righty, and so will do my utmost to defend my betters irrespective of how absurd my posts need to be"

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I should imagine that's because he wasn't comfortable making that judgement. I didn't see him give us an answer today. Did he?

Trouble with this is the bigger picture is hidden by agendas going after an individual. However if there haven't been fines issued to people travelling for childcare purposes then I'm sure we'll hear before too long. However if I'd been fined for travelling over something I thought was an exceptional circumstance I would appeal it now. Wouldn't you?

So it seems the answer has been forthcoming. However Matt Hancock did say he'd answer from the daily briefing podium.

 

 

[Aggy 752]

17 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I don't disagree with most of this. 

I wasnt trying  to suggest that a case should be on the whim of a judge or juror.  Of course the case should be judged as objectively as possible but to suggest that this is black and white or that there is a form of strict liability is, in my lay opinion,  going too far.

Agree that the mental element is likely relevant and that the experience and attributes are relevant (though of course this is not a law on technical matters so there are unlikely to be much in the experience or attributes that would lead to different conclusions for different people- mental capacity excepted)

Ultimately I see that this comes down to the decision maker looking at the act, hearing the reason and deciding whether or not it sounds legit. At its heart  this is a matter of applying common sense. Wrap it up however you like but it is a matter of, guided, opinion .

I still feel that Cummings could argue the 'moving home', 'care for a vulnerable person' and 'other' excuses, though I most profess to not knowing what to make of whether or not a child is vulnerable as you do correctly point to the differing uses of 'includes' in the regs. Regardless, I would say that a *genuine* need to travel for care of a child in case the worst happens does seem reasonable to me even if  not on the list

I'm not going to comment on the reasonableness of his excuses except to say that the second incident 'bernard castle' does appear to be both the least serious and the hardest to justify with reference to the law or advice. 

But he still won't be prosecuted...

Mental capacity isn’t the only thing. It also means things such as him being a father are taken into account - it might be reasonable for a father of a 4 year old helpless child to act in a different way to a twenty year old unmarried bloke with no kids.

I don’t think it does come down to the legitimacy of what he says. Even if we take what he said at face value and say his ‘excuses’ were his legitimate reasons, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. The first trip to Durham, possibly. The BC trip, just isn’t a reasonable excuse. And if you’re not going to comment on the reasonableness of his excuses then you’re not even discussing the legal position any more - as that is what it comes down to; reasonableness, so probably little more left to say.

But I agree he won’t be prosecuted and, frankly, I think the police have got better things to be spending their time on. 

 

[Barbe bleu 812]

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

They haven’t got all the tracers in place, I can assure you!

There will be tracers in place as there always has been (or at least since 1854) the nurse that asks you where you put it and if there is anyone they should call is a contact tracer.   

The question is have we now both enlarged the service and reduced infections enough that we can follow every lead.   Doesn't matter so much during lockdown (though I have wondered why we didn't keep it going right up until lockdown but as we progressively open it it will become increasingly important 

[Barbe bleu 812]

4 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Mental capacity isn’t the only thing. It also means things such as him being a father are taken into account - it might be reasonable for a father of a 4 year old helpless child to act in a different way to a twenty year old unmarried bloke with no kids.

I don’t think it does come down to the legitimacy of what he says. Even if we take what he said at face value and say his ‘excuses’ were his legitimate reasons, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. The first trip to Durham, possibly. The BC trip, just isn’t a reasonable excuse. And if you’re not going to comment on the reasonableness of his excuses then you’re not even discussing the legal position any more - as that is what it comes down to; reasonableness, so probably little more left to say.

But I agree he won’t be prosecuted and, frankly, I think the police have got better things to be spending their time on. 

 

Well yes,  the child is hugely relevant  and without the child he has little hope.

I agree that having  a 4 year old doesn't give you a free pass, your excuse must still pass the sounds legit and sniff tests. Like i say it's not black and white in either direction.

I think we are probably agreed on Barnard castle but I am still not expressing an opinion

 

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

20 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

There will be tracers in place as there always has been (or at least since 1854) the nurse that asks you where you put it and if there is anyone they should call is a contact tracer.   

The question is have we now both enlarged the service and reduced infections enough that we can follow every lead.   Doesn't matter so much during lockdown (though I have wondered why we didn't keep it going right up until lockdown but as we progressively open it it will become increasingly important 

for those who want a better picture have a read below

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/27/englands-coronavirus-tracing-plan-beset-by-conflict-and-confusion

this is little more than a means to herd the great unwashed back to work under the guise that it is now safe, as we have some 'system' in place

"Meanwhile, some of those hired for the national contact tracing centres have had relatively cursory training. One told the Guardian that the guidance on doing the job simply consisted of watching videos and reading scripts. “I have not been given any details of who to call if I have problems. Only an email address has been provided which largely goes unanswered.”

Others warned that they had little experience of using computer systems intended to help them talk through cases. Another worker talked of being “thrown in the deep end”. He added: “The online system is really complicated and I want just a couple of days once it goes live to navigate it.”"

[lake district canary 4,531]

I think Bill should just be given his own sub forum where he can bat away all the criticism, deride everyone who dares to question him and generally indulge in all his fantasies and conspiracy theories, to his heart's content. 

There are some things that need to be seen as grey areas - not everything in life is black and white.  A court is where you find polarised conclusions - guilty or not guilty - but in Cummings case there are grey areas - it's just that some people will not see them.

For one thing is the child vulnerable and if so that would alter the situation? We are not told this - and neither should we as it is not necessary we know about private medical matters concerning children - but he could be.

Was Cummings acting out of fear and dread?  He could well be - he mentioned fear - and state of mind comes into this when you are faced with an ill wife, the very probability of you getting ill too and the well being/health of the child - the survival instinct takes over.   

The fact is that he did go to Durham, but the circumstances that led him to go to Durham have not been forensically discussed in a court of law - he has only had questions fired at him from a load of journalists who frankly have made a mess of the whole saga. As has been said it was a fearful situation and he is only human.

He took his child to hospital and maybe exposed others to the virus, even though we are told he stayed in the car - but again, faced with a sick child, what are you supposed to do? If you phone for help you will not be told "we'll send an ambulance" - you will be asked "can you get your child to the hospital" - which the answer would be of course, yes. 

He also went on a drive and stopped somewhere for a few minutes - well that was clearly wrong - but once again he has not been forensically questioned - only attacked by journalists who had clearly made up their mind.

So people can go on and on about this until the cows come home, but unless you were in Cummings shoes and know what he was thinking, what his state of mind was and how things really were health wise, all you are doing is responding to what the media have told you - a lot of which has been wrong - and what Cummings himself has said in a barrage of questions the like of which was embarrassing to watch. Seeing someone have to answer the same questions over and over by a load of journalists, some of who were so poor they should not have been there, was a tad ridiculous.  He gave his side of the story as well as he could given the circumstances - but that was never going to be good enough because people have decided that whatever he says, he is totally guilty of all charges. That is trial by media at it's worst and verging on lynch mob mentality. 

Why he didn't show a bit more humility and even say sorry, I don't know, but I suspect he is a tough character who would not apologise if he thinks what he did was acceptable under the circumstances he was in.

I'm not going to defend him, but I do think that the whole thing has got out of hand.  What we are all going through has been an incredibly worrying and fearful time (unless you are one of those nutters that think the whole virus thing is a scam) and any one of us could act in unusual ways in scary circumstances. 

As for Bill, well goodnight your lordship, your thread will still be here in the morning for you to carry on your crusade.

 

[Bill 1,788]

you never have struck me as one of the brightest stars in the galaxy LDC, but this time you appear to have turned into a black hole of idiocy

it is black and white (no pun)

either Cummings is guilty of breaching the rules, or he is not

for my part his numerous attempts at a cover up point to the mens rea - the guilty mind

(I shall desist from making any joke that your absurd waffle points to diarrhoea)

if he thought his actions were not wrong there would be no need of any cover up, or lies...................quite simple

much like yourself, some might suggest 🤪

[Herman 9,712]

Has Cummings taken his gaslighting too far? Some are still falling for it but well done to those that haven't. 

[T 190]

Congratulations to the UK on finally starting a track and trace scheme. 3 months after other countries. 3 months of delay before starting to be able to actively being able to manage coming out of lockdown with all the health and economic consequences. If anyone thinks the UK government is competent then you are deluding yourself because in comparison to some other countries the UK management of the situation is absolutely shockingly appalling.