The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Joe_ Public

Arghus wrote: »

Cummings will find a way to weasel out of this.

I think just brazen his way out of it more like, he's bang to rights here but can just see them facing any opposition down, these guys do seem to think they're above the law almost.

As for Kuennsberg, i pity her really. To get into that position and just be little more than a government mouthpiece and cheerleader, how little self respect do you require for that?

Some talk of tory mps being very unhappy about the situation. I imagine Cummings would have enemies there but how many of them would have the necessary backbone to press it? Not many, I'd wager.

devnull

Enzokk wrote: »

Beth Rigby correcting the BBC,

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1263948583222554631?s=20

If the story is as reported that he broke the lockdown rules while he was sick and not just like the Scottish CMO or Neil Ferguson, then there is no way he can stay on in his job.

This doesn't mean he will quit or be asked to resign, but the negative stories this will generate for the next 3 weeks until the next PMQ's where Starmer will ask Johnson why his advisor is allowed to break the rules will be overwhelming. I actually hope that he doesn't resign, it will make for fun headlines for the next few weeks at least.

Edit: It is time for Kuenssberg to go as well. This is unacceptable,

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1263914724305055745?s=20

Why is she replying as the Political Editor of the BBC to the Political Editor of the Daily Mail? Does she think the same sources would not have reached out to Pippa Crerar to correct the story? She really is nothing more than a government mouthpiece any longer and her form of journalism is part of the problem. She has been quick to pass on the No.10 source reading of the situation but not actually said anything about why this is a big deal. Useless waste of tax payer money at the moment.

Another one now:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1263914317436669955

The BBC is essentially State TV these days sucking up to the Government. Whether that is through fear of having their funding cut or an active decision that is made is open to debate. Laura is nowhere near impartial and she has been at this game for a long while now.

She was hired by Robbie Gibb who then went on to work for Theresa May believe it or not. There were a number of complaints about her impartiality that were rejected by him as well. Maybe she's fishing for the same if Carrie Symonds gives up her job as Director of Communications.....

Arghus

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think just brazen his way out of it more like, he's bang to rights here but can just see them facing any opposition down, these guys do seem to think they're above the law almost.

As for Kuennsberg, i pity her really. To get into that position and just be little more than a government mouthpiece and cheerleader, how little self respect do you require for that?

Some talk of tory mps being very unhappy about the situation. I imagine Cummings would have enemies there but how many of them would have the necessary backbone to press it? Not many, I'd wager.

I'd have hope that Starmer will eviserate Boris at PMQ's over this. So far he seems damn good at sticking the knife in the blustering idiot.

hotmail.com

This isn't a defence, but I feel that Laura and many other journalists are just so whore ish when it comes to Twitter likes and retweets that it leads to these mistakes.

Gavin Riley and Richard Chambers of Virgin Media are the same here - and they regularly have to amend or retract tweets.

So whether it's bias or just incompetence, I'm not sure.

She should have checked with a second source before sending that tweet out.

Enzokk

devnull wrote: »

Another one now:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1263914317436669955

The BBC is essentially State TV these days sucking up to the Government. Whether that is through fear of having their funding cut or an active decision that is made is open to debate. Laura is nowhere near impartial and she has been at this game for a long while now.

She was hired by Robbie Gibb who then went on to work for Theresa May believe it or not. There were a number of complaints about her impartiality that were rejected by him as well. Maybe she's fishing for the same if Carrie Symonds gives up her job as Director of Communications.....

I think the BBC is being brought into disrepute by figures like Kuenssberg. What she has been tweeting tonight is over and above just reporting the story as she likes to claim in her twitter bio. She was actively spreading the No.10 narrative without seemingly thinking. Why she would feel the need to rush to the defence of Cummings and No.10, well I guess she isn't happy in her £250K per year job and is aiming to earn more working as a consultant to the PM or something like that.

The reason I say the BBC's problem is certain people in the organization, here is the Newsnight report about the story,

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1263955782346907653?s=20

Lewis Goodall did his job and confirmed what the rules were at the time. As per the clip, if you have symptoms you stay in your house. You get someone to deliver goods to you as you shouldn't leave your house.

Johnson said on the 18th March that children shouldn't visit their grandparents because they are at risk. But Cummings can go and drive 4 hours with his child in the car while he and his wife is symptomatic and then have them take care of the child? Seriously? This is a joke and very funny to see from the outside.

Enzokk

hotmail.com wrote: »

This isn't a defence, but I feel that Laura and many other journalists are just so whore ish when it comes to Twitter likes and retweets that it leads to these mistakes.

Gavin Riley and Richard Chambers of Virgin Media are the same here - and they regularly have to amend or retract tweets.

So whether it's bias or just incompetence, I'm not sure.

She should have checked with a second source before sending that tweet out.

I agree that there is some degree of this at play, but Kuenssberg was told off for editing a interview she did with Corbyn to suit a angle she was pursuing. Now she is being the spokesperson for No.10? How can we forget her tweet about the assault on the staff member by the Labour mob during the election campaign when it was nothing of the sort. She has previous history of not checking sources which means, either she doesn't learn or she doesn't care at this stage.

Nate--IRL--

Non-news, what else are they slipping under the radar?

Nate

hotmail.com

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree that there is some degree of this at play, but Kuenssberg was told off for editing a interview she did with Corbyn to suit a angle she was pursuing. Now she is being the spokesperson for No.10? How can we forget her tweet about the assault on the staff member by the Labour mob during the election campaign when it was nothing of the sort. She has previous history of not checking sources which means, either she doesn't learn or she doesn't care at this stage.

I tend to agree. She probably needs to just stay off Twitter and worry about the 6 and 10 bulletins.

Is Twitter now in the contract of journalists? It seems to be going that way.

S.M.B.

She corrected herself, without really acknowledging it a little later but she should not be so quick to get her sources response out there.

dfx-

devnull wrote: »

The BBC is essentially State TV these days sucking up to the Government. Whether that is through fear of having their funding cut or an active decision that is made is open to debate. Laura is nowhere near impartial and she has been at this game for a long while now.

She was hired by Robbie Gibb who then went on to work for Theresa May believe it or not. There were a number of complaints about her impartiality that were rejected by him as well. Maybe she's fishing for the same if Carrie Symonds gives up her job as Director of Communications.....

Was there not a Brexity Leave Campaigner Boris type appointed as head of department or something similar in BBC News a few years back whose plan was to direct it a particular way?

Joe_ Public

hotmail.com wrote: »

This isn't a defence, but I feel that Laura and many other journalists are just so whore ish when it comes to Twitter likes and retweets that it leads to these mistakes.

Gavin Riley and Richard Chambers of Virgin Media are the same here - and they regularly have to amend or retract tweets.

So whether it's bias or just incompetence, I'm not sure.

She should have checked with a second source before sending that tweet out.

But what is the "mistake" exactly?

Is it tweeting a wrong detail or is it allowing herself to be used as a mouthpiece for "sources" ( ie Cummings himself) in order to spin the narrative in a favourable way for the government? She's far too close to Boris Johnson personally and the price for access is pretty much all her professional integrity. That is where i see the big mistake.

devnull

Interesting to look at the way the articles on the BBC website are written tonight:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52779356

Dominic Cummings travelled hundreds of miles from London to County Durham during the lockdown when he had coronavirus symptoms.

A source close to the PM's chief aide told BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg that he and his wife went to his parents' home to self-isolate.

The source insisted Mr Cummings did not break official guidance because he and his wife stayed in a separate building.

It seems towing the Government line is more important than checking if what the sources are saying is correct, because the guidance doesn't allow for that whatsoever. You are supposed to stay at home.

The fact that they leave the source quote there but don't even mention the fact that what the source said is actually against the guidelines, seems to be attempting to deliberately mislead the public.

I've also now noticed that the BBC using the words 'stretching the rules' which is laughable.

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

Was there not a Brexity Leave Campaigner Boris type appointed as head of department or something similar in BBC News a few years back whose plan was to direct it a particular way?

Think that's your man Robbie Gibb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Gibb

Whilst he was the BBC Westminster Editor, his brother Nick Gibb, was Tory Minster of State for Schools under Cameron. He's a rabid hard Brexiteer and his twitter is well worth a read if you want to see his views.

I remember once he said 'avoid loaded language, it gives away your bias' which is an interesting quote since the focus appears to be more on not giving your bias away rather than being impartial.

bilston

Seamai wrote: »

And not a day goes by without seeing an article saying that the figure for deaths is massively understated.

It could be the same in every country

bilston

Taking individuals out of the equation, the BBC gets grief from the left for being a Tory govt mouthpiece and yet gets grief from the right for being too liberal and left wing.

That says to me that it probably does ok in being impartial.

LuckyLloyd

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Non-news, what else are they slipping under the radar?

Nate

Well they were slipping the U.K. taking 1st place in European deaths when they did Ferguson on this. It can’t be one rule for Ferguson and another for Cummings, can it?!

devnull

Better analysis from Beth Rigby here:
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1263965288598560769

Gives her view but delivers it in a much better way than Kuenssberg, focus on explaining the situation rather than getting a defence in first and foremost.

Laura is trending on twitter at the moment and most of it seems fairly negative, but realise that twitter is not normally a good barometer of public opinion so you can't read too much into it.

BonnieSituation

dfx- wrote: »

Was there not a Brexity Leave Campaigner Boris type appointed as head of department or something similar in BBC News a few years back whose plan was to direct it a particular way?

The runner for Question Time was Brexity iirc

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

Why is government advice that if you had symptoms for Covid-19 you isolated and if no symptoms after 7 days you do not need to isolate any longer but someone from overseas without symptoms has to quarantine for 14 days? If you live with other people and you show symptoms then you are free to break isolation after 7 days but others in your house have to isolate for 14 days.

This is why there is chaos in the government messaging and their response. They somehow decided that the UK is special and you don't have to isolate if you don't show symptoms after 7 days, but the rest of the world advised 14 days. Now they have a mandatory 14 day quarantine, sensible, but they still have the 7 day advice for people to follow in certain circumstances. Surely the messaging is easier to understand if you just advised 14 day isolation?

But I guess that would be admission that their initial advice was wrong.

It's always about clarity of message.

When the crisis first took hold here it was difficult to work out what to be doing.

Once the Taoiseach made his speech and launched the full on lockdown it remarkably became easier to deal with from my pov. I know that my friends and family felt the same.

Every time you have a proviso within a guideline it makes it hard to remember.

The hivemind is inherently stupid after all.

Enzokk

bilston wrote: »

Taking individuals out of the equation, the BBC gets grief from the left for being a Tory govt mouthpiece and yet gets grief from the right for being too liberal and left wing.

That says to me that it probably does ok in being impartial.

Yes and no, that is because it is obvious that you have individuals that within the news organization that leans either left or right. The main workforce are mainly young and quite diverse, so the minions at the BBC are in the main quite liberal and left leaning.

Some of the decisions makers and faces though are anything but, with Kuenssberg being discussed here and her predecessor having been President of the Oxford University Conservative Association, Nick Robinson. Then you have Andrew Neil, while a great interviewer, he is most definitely on the right.

So for me the reason the BBC gets grief from both left and right isn't always because they are impartial, it is because they have not been impartial enough in the past few years at least. You have the journalists on the ground doing their work and holding government to account, so you have accusations of bias from the right (see Newsnight and Lewis Goodall on this story).

Then you have the story hardly getting much coverage, apparently, on the 10pm news broadcast and the Kuenssberg tweets just regurgitating the No.10 line without any critical thinking. On this story there will be accusation of bias from left and right, but it will be to do with the individuals within the BBC and not them being impartial itself and not with the way they reported the story.

Let us not forget that the supporters of government will always claim bias if there is a negative story about the government. This will be done even if the story is fair.

devnull wrote: »

Better analysis from Beth Rigby here:
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1263965288598560769

Gives her view but delivers it in a much better way than Kuenssberg, focus on explaining the situation rather than getting a defence in first and foremost.

Laura is trending on twitter at the moment and most of it seems fairly negative, but realise that twitter is not normally a good barometer of public opinion so you can't read too much into it.

Kuenssberg lost the plot when she had the program about how Brexit unfolded by following her during the Brexit debacle. She became the news or the focus, and as a journalist you are not there to be the news but to report it. She should have been moved to a presenting job or gone private at that stage, IMO. There has been too many times where she is being discussed instead of the news itself and that for me is an indication that she isn't doing a very good job and not for the pay she is getting from the tax payer.

I do wonder if the other journalists are getting a bit tired of Kuenssberg being a spokesperson for No.10 at this stage? Beth Rigby's reply to the BBC tweet that it was reported by the Mirror and Guardian when their story said they were told he was reported to police in Durham is very passive aggressive.

There is a good exchange between her and Pippa Crerar about this story and how there is so much wrong with the statements from Downing Street and from Wakefield and Cummings. The reason this will not go away quickly unless he resigns or he actually tries to stick through it and keep his job is because what he did doesn't make sense.

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1263941858058788864?s=20

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1263931097823485953?s=20

Two other Political Editors discussing the story and not just being a messenger there. At the very least Cummings broke his own government's guidelines on staying at home. At worst he put his parents at risk of contracting the disease as they were travelling it seems while being sick with him in the car and then went to their house so they could help with childcare.

theological

I think it's pretty unlikely that he is going to get the sack. I would be of the mind that he probably should though.

Joe_ Public

Cummings being sacked would obviously necessitate the prime minister having a backbone and going through with it. Possible but highly unlikely.

Alternatively, Cummings could just do the honourable thing and resign, like Neil Ferguson did. Possible but even more unlikely. Honour is not in the guy's lexicon.

And will Johnson show up at today's briefing to face the music? Again, most doubtful i would think. Pity the hapless mug who draws the short straw on that one.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I think it's pretty unlikely that he is going to get the sack. I would be of the mind that he probably should though.

The odds of him being sacked would be low, but that is simply because it would so bad politically.

It should resign or be sacked, 100%. He is on the SAGE panel, he knows the science, he blatantly chose to break the very rules he helped to create. Ethically he hasn't a leg to stand on, but politics isn't always about ethics.

The main issue is that the government is under significant pressure atm. 2 u turns in 24 hours, Johnson is clearly unwell and unable to pregorm as a PM should, they have just accepted that their testing numbers include significant double counting,

Will that make them determined to ride this out or will they ditch him to try to stem the bad press? My money would be on riding it out.

bilston

Joe_ Public wrote: »

And will Johnson show up at today's briefing to face the music? Again, most doubtful i would think. Pity the hapless mug who draws the short straw on that one.

No chance of that on a Saturday!

He should be attending at least two press conferences a week.

I tend to have little interest now unless it's Johnson, Hancock or Rabb delivering. The rest are pretty irrelevant. Rabb is too actually, but I suppose in theory he is standing in for Johnson when he does it sinus slightly more relevant than someone like George Eustice...

It could be that Johnson is still struggling with the impact of Covid and the govt just won't admit it, hence his low profile. He did nearly lose his life only a few weeks ago. The problem is he has history of ducking tough questioning in the recent pre Covid past.

devnull

Enzokk wrote: »

I do wonder if the other journalists are getting a bit tired of Kuenssberg being a spokesperson for No.10 at this stage? Beth Rigby's reply to the BBC tweet that it was reported by the Mirror and Guardian when their story said they were told he was reported to police in Durham is very passive aggressive.

There is a good exchange between her and Pippa Crerar about this story and how there is so much wrong with the statements from Downing Street and from Wakefield and Cummings. The reason this will not go away quickly unless he resigns or he actually tries to stick through it and keep his job is because what he did doesn't make sense.

Two other Political Editors discussing the story and not just being a messenger there. At the very least Cummings broke his own government's guidelines on staying at home. At worst he put his parents at risk of contracting the disease as they were travelling it seems while being sick with him in the car and then went to their house so they could help with childcare.

I've noticed a few tweets last night from journos in relation to things like this, a few likes here and there. Nothing really out of the box obvious that you could say was a full attack/dig at Laura, but there does appear to be people who may be getting annoyed with her. Adam Boulton tweeted Oborne's piece about client journalism this morning too.

More client journalism this morning
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1264093415253385216

As well as the mention on the BBC of 'stretching' rather than breaking the rules, the analysis on the BBC website now includes this little nugget as well as was being talked about on the BBC itself last night.

A source close to Dominic Cummings is insistent that he didn't break the rules. But for those at the top to be perceived to even be stretching the rules is damaging.

The other thing is that right at the top of the BBC story it says he denied breaking the rules and was getting help for childcare. It's somewhat strange that nowhere in the article does it state what the rules actually are. Are we to assume that the BBC don't know the rules or is there some other reason why they don't analyse whether getting help for childcare breaks the rules or not?

Is it because they are more interested in amplifying the Governments response than actually holding them to account and providing some meaningful analysis and fact checking on the comments that have been made in relation to this?

There's also a report in the Evening Standard from a friend of DC:
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1263933122791510016

robinph

On BBC Breakfast this morning they were speaking with Ian Blackford (?) and Naga Munchetty was trying to claim that Cummings misdemeanours were not as bad as the Scottish CMO or Prof Ferguson because of something about it all being the same family?!?!

The Scottish CMO just went to their own second house, but didn't meet anyone else there. Wrong and stupid and rightly resigned as they need to be giving the right image even if there was zero risk to anyone else.

Ferguson carried on with the affair that was already going on. Meant mixing of two separate household groups. Wrong and stupid and mildly risky to health of both household groups and rightly resigned.

Cummings household was ill but rather that isolating travel the country and inflict their infection on another household, and a much more vulnerable household due to age so potentially having a genuine impact on NHS services. Somehow the BBC think that is the lesser infraction of the rules of the three situations?
WTAF!

Call me Al

What a dishonourable man.
Neil Ferguson had to resign for a far less egregious breach of lockdown.
Why is Cummings any different?

Joe_ Public

devnull wrote: »

I've noticed a few tweets last night from journos in relation to things like this, a few likes here and there. Nothing really out of the box obvious that you could say was a full attack/dig at Laura, but there does appear to be people who may be getting annoyed with her. Adam Boulton tweeted Oborne's piece about client journalism this morning too.

More client journalism this morning
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1264093415253385216

As well as the mention on the BBC of 'stretching' rather than breaking the rules, the analysis on the BBC website now includes this little nugget as well as was being talked about on the BBC itself last night.



The other thing is that right at the top of the BBC story it says he denied breaking the rules and was getting help for childcare. It's somewhat strange that nowhere in the article does it state what the rules actually are. Are we to assume that the BBC don't know the rules or is there some other reason why they don't analyse whether getting help for childcare breaks the rules or not?

Is it because they are more interested in amplifying the Governments response than actually holding them to account and providing some meaningful analysis and fact checking on the comments that have been made in relation to this?

There's also a report in the Evening Standard from a friend of DC:
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1263933122791510016

Not that it matters anyway, but Kuennsberg expects us to swallow the line that they brought the kid north, to their parents house, for a week or whatever, and there was no contact at all with parents. If his sister was doing the childcare, did she self isolate for 14 days, as would have been advised? Kuennsberg might say she's only the messenger here, but she calls herself a fupping journalist. She had Cummings on the other end of the line. Why not try and ask him these questions?

HBC08

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yeah, I only spent several years teaching at a British university, and another year as a classroom assistant in a secondary school before that. Sure, what would I know about the education system?

:rolleyes:

I hope you weren't teaching anger management.

Nate--IRL--

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well they were slipping the U.K. taking 1st place in European deaths when they did Ferguson on this. It can’t be one rule for Ferguson and another for Cummings, can it?!

Oh I agree, but I'm more concerned about what they are hiding, using this as cover.

Nate

LuckyLloyd

Call me Al wrote: »

What a dishonourable man.
Neil Ferguson had to resign for a far less egregious breach of lockdown.
Why is Cummings any different?

If it was an opponent of Cummings or his counterpart on the other side of the political divide he would be angling to have them shamed into resignation. No question in my mind.

Harry Palmr

If the BBC was that Tory friendly Newsnight would have had a government minister on during Covid 19 and yet it's been months since one was willing to go on. The corporation has an intrinsic unwillingness to openly criticise the government of the day for the obvious reason. They are beholden due to it's licence fee, any hostility is expressed though other means such as HIGNFY and Mash Report (which didn't spare Boris et al in its recent run) or commissioned dramas rather than in house presenters.

Joe_ Public

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Oh I agree, but I'm more concerned about what they are hiding, using this as cover.

Nate

I thought that immediately as first report i saw was in daily mail and wondered why they'd be doing that. But it's a mirror/guardian story so it's not like they ever wanted it out there. Would be a good time to dump some negative stuff out there, but haven't noticed anything obvious as of yet anyway.

LuckyLloyd

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Oh I agree, but I'm more concerned about what they are hiding, using this as cover.

Nate

I think your cynicism is certainly warranted for this particular administration, but the story isn’t coming from Government channels like we’re used to.

bilston

Call me Al wrote: »

What a dishonourable man.
Neil Ferguson had to resign for a far less egregious breach of lockdown.
Why is Cummings any different?

Morally I think Ferguson is worse. He broke the lockdown to get some action with his married lover.

Nevertheless, Cummings has to go, I have friends who both had Covid and they still had to look after their kids, one of them had it pretty bad, had to go to A&E at once stage. The rule makers can't be the rule breakers otherwise why should any of the rest of us follow them?

Joe_ Public

Harry Palmr wrote: »

If the BBC was that Tory friendly Newsnight would have had a government minister on during Covid 19 and yet it's been months since one was willing to go on. The corporation has an intrinsic unwillingness to openly criticise the government of the day for the obvious reason. They are beholden due to it's licence fee, any hostility is expressed though other means such as HIGNFY and Mash Report (which didn't spare Boris et al in its recent run) or commissioned dramas rather than in house presenters.

Newsnight is a fairly investigate driven show, designed to hold politicians to account. It utterly shredded labour and corbyn in the run up to the election and now it's giving a fairly dismal government a hard time. Rather than go on and defend themselves, it's far easier to dodge and moan about an institutional anti tory bias which is a standard right wing us against the establishment trope. And people do fall for it.

Hurrache

This story yet again shows how much in the pocket of the Tory's Laura K is. She has been abysmal during Brexit when she was PR for them, and she's knowingly regurgitating the spin fed to her by number 10 without an ounce of critical thinking.

The BBCs political editor with an inability to edit.

Patser

As much as Cummins may try and brazen this out, there's something about how Boris had been acting this week that suggests he's very nervous about public support - look at the U turns on NHS payments by non-UK staff, and also on the eligibility of family to remain.

I mean the former NHS reversal come only 24 hours after he stood up in House of Commons and defended it - and looked terrible in doing so.

So if he's already reversing things quickly due to a backlash, maybe Cummins isn't safe if that backlash grows (and it will as the inconsistencies of where, who, why he was anywhere- between his Wife's Spectator article saying one thing, then he's with his parents for childcare help, oh we meant his Sister, but actually we were in a separate house so didn't need them at all)

I see sheep

Cummings is a piece of dirt

Enzokk

The tweets of support has started.

https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1264132431361314816?s=20

https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1264138986848759809?s=20

https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/1264126108733186050?s=20


I know some on here don't like him, but my goodness James O'Brien has a pretty solid take on the current state of those in charge,

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1263830913634512903?s=20

You can see the statement from No.10 on why Cummings went to his parents home. I think his reason for breaking the lockdown seems reasonable, but they told people to stay at home even if they are sick. This was the advice from government. There was no advice about being allowed to go to family if you are far away and you are showing symptoms to take care of your child. There would have been many families that had to tough out this virus in lockdown away from family because Johnson told them they had to stay at home if they showed symptoms.

robinph

Having parents living within a few miles we'd contemplated early on what we'd need to do if both of us got ill and what we'd need to do with the kid. The grandparents were not even considered as an option. Whilst not bringing up the subject with other parties we'd figured we knew enough other people who we'd trust, and who at that point were recovering from Covid19 that the best action would be to recruit them for assistance if needed at the time.

If we were so ill we couldn't mind the kid the absolute last people we'd be offloading a potential infectious kids onto would be family members who would be needed after whatever disaster happened to take custody and run the risk of wiping them out as well.

Enzokk

Also, you can already find so many holes in the story from Cummings side. He still asserts that neither he nor his family spoke to the police, but this is directly contradicted by the police who said they visited the property and spoke to the owner about a person who traveled from London to Durham.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1264136682271637504?s=20

Now I guess that this could be a second individual who also broke the lockdown advice to travel from London to Durham while being symptomatic and was isolating at the same time. But that would be some coincidence at precisely the wrong time for Cummings.

Here is a response from the Durham police/crime commissioner,

https://twitter.com/DannyShawBBC/status/1264122350230032385?s=20


Also, for a someone who likes to complain about the remainer elites, his family sure was lucky to have a second house on the property for him and his wife and child to isolate in. Man of the people that.

theological

robinph wrote: »

Having parents living within a few miles we'd contemplated early on what we'd need to do if both of us got ill and what we'd need to do with the kid. The grandparents were not even considered as an option. Whilst not bringing up the subject with other parties we'd figured we knew enough other people who we'd trust, and who at that point were recovering from Covid19 that the best action would be to recruit them for assistance if needed at the time.

If we were so ill we couldn't mind the kid the absolute last people we'd be offloading a potential infectious kids onto would be family members who would be needed after whatever disaster happened to take custody and run the risk of wiping them out as well.

I totally agree that they are wrong on this.

Although the risk is rather small to the general public by being in the tin can that is your car and travelling, it's the risk to his family by bringing the two kids into their house who had spent time with them whilst recovering from coronavirus.

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

I totally agree that they are wrong on this.

Although the risk is rather small to the general public by being in the tin can that is your car and travelling, it's the risk to his family by bringing the two kids into their house who had spent time with them whilst recovering from coronavirus.

Do we know if they stopped on the way for a toilet break with a 4 year old in the car? If they did then the risk to the public is substantially more you would think. But we will not get a straight answer from him or his family about this.

Joe_ Public

It would nearly be comical if the situation wasnt one of potential life and death. Dom may have stretched the rules a little bit, but he's a hero who did it all for the love of his kid. Anyone who objects to that is just political point scoring. Do these guys ever take a day off?

O'Neill

To be honest, I think this is all deliberate. It will deliberatly get some people to think 'screw this, if he can break the rules, so can I.' Herd immunity.

devnull

Pretty scary that somehow who made a decision that they may be getting so ill they are unable to look after the their children, still felt that they were in a position to drive 250 miles safely.

Alo, it seems that those defending Dom, have trouble keeping their story straight:
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1264096163273281536

Also this tweet from Beth Rigby is interesting in that it wasn't a Number 10 source, PM or Government:
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1264155236945530880

The statement that has been made by Number 10 also seems to basically accuse Durham Police of lying.

Enzokk

O'Neill wrote: »

To be honest, I think this is all deliberate. It will deliberatly get some people to think 'screw this, if he can break the rules, so can I.' Herd immunity.

The pressure to fire him or for him to resign will be huge. I fail to see how this story is a way to tell people to go out. Johnson did more than enough to tell people to go out by telling people they can go as far as they want for exercise and to go out as long as they want and as many times per day as well.

The downside of Cummings actually leaving his post is so much more for him than just manipulating the public to break the lockdown.

Harry Palmr

On the other hand

https://twitter.com/helenpidd/status/1264139082516570112

lainey_d_123

What even goes on these people's heads?

'I've got a potentially deadly virus, so let me just go and visit my elderly parents during a lockdown, so they can help with the childcare.'

Jesus Christ on a bike, like.

How can ANYONE support these people?