RootsChat.Com
General => The Stay Safe Board => Topic started by: IgorStrav on Wednesday 27 May 20 14:57 BST (UK)
-
I thought this very interesting analysis of Dominic Cummings' statement in the Rose Garden at 10 Downing Street on 25th May 2020 was well worth listening to. There's no paywall round it.
If you had any doubts about whether it was a statement from the heart from a devoted father focused only on his child, or a legally written document carefully drafted to avoid any future challenge in an investigation/court of law, you may be able to resolve them by listening.
I'm also reminded of the fact that it's common knowledge if you're involved in a car accident, no matter how much you know it's your fault and you want to apologise to the other party, and take responsibility, your insurance company tells you that 'you must not accept any liability'.
However, it may well be that notwithstanding that, when you wish to acknowledge that your actions in particularly important circumstances may - in hindsight - have not been the right ones, you do take the opportunity to apologise.
Rather than ensure that everyone round you keeps saying how 'reasonable' you've been, thereby implying that others, carefully and often painfully taking other actions, were more misguided and potentially less caring. And, incidentally, affecting compliance to particularly important instructions in a very dangerous situation.
I do wish we had some more witnesses of whatever went on in Barnard Castle, because an eye-testing safety trip it most definitely wasn't. Good lawyer at drafting, perhaps, pretty poor at coming up with a decent excuse.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1265573114219565057?s=20
-
Strange that his son could survive for a 260 mile journey (about 4 hours) without needing to stop for a toilet, but on the trip to Barnard Castle (half an hour each way and 10 - 15 minutes stay there) he needed to stop on the way back, less than 75 minutes from leaving the Durham residence.
-
Car Crash
-
Should have followed his boss's example and taken a test drive first.....
-
;D
Has any one noticed that, before many of his answers, he does a bit of bluster and looks down to his right as if reading from a tablet/phone etc. Is DC prompting him :-\
He's not doing very well, isi he?
-
The trouble as I see it is that most of the comentators have clearly never been to Barnard Castle.
The family “pile” lies directly adjacent to a duel carriageway section of the A167 and the trip to Barnard Castle would have followed a pretty obvious route. BC isn’t that big and it’s difficult to reconcile the statement to the effect that they “found ourself on the outskirts of ....”. On the route they would have taken, by the time you enter the outskirts, you are, in reality, on the main street.
Once there, you either park alongside the masses or drive through, over the river, and out the other side. His description, to me, just doesn’t stack up - check it out on Google Earth. Travelling from the “Lodge” to BC strikes me as more of a day out than a test drive.
-
Car Crash
Great
-
The trouble as I see it is that most of the comentators have clearly never been to Barnard Castle.
It's also funny to hear some reporters talk about "Castle Barnard". I wonder if they're mixing it up with Castle Howard.
-
The trouble as I see it is that most of the comentators have clearly never been to Barnard Castle.
It's also funny to hear some reporters talk about "Castle Barnard". I wonder if they're mixing it up with Castle Howard.
Even worse: Castle Barnard
-
Even worse: Castle Barnard
Yes! That too.
-
Yes, these southerners also go on about “Glarrrsegow”; wherever that is!
-
Just watching local (Tyne Tees) news.
Durham Police are regarding it as a 'critical incident'. They are going to look at cctv and other evidence, breaches of the Coronnovirus regulations and are investigating breaches of the Highway Code.
-
Is it not time everyone stopped getting so hot under the collar over the Cummings matter?. I think it is.
It's really quite a simple matter but is being complicated by "why did he do this?", "why did he do that", why did he do the other?", "why didn't he do this?", "why didn't he do that?", "why didn't he do the other?", "he should have done this", and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
I'm not outraged, furious, angry, annoyed or even slightly miffed.
I see it like this -
1. Cummings was faced with a set of circumstances which required some form of action.
2. He looked at the problem, made a decision, made interpretations to suit his problem (therein lies the problem) made a plan and put it into action.
3. Whilst he may not have broken the law, he was no doubt involved at least in formulating the Stay
At Home slogan which scared millions of people into staying at home since 23rd March to date.
4. As at 3, he may not have broken the law but he is wrong morally and has no alternative but to
step down from his post or he should be removed.
I think it is a bit late now for Durham police to change their minds, they should have dealt with it properly in the first place. I think their investigating breaches of the Highway Code is also a waste of time, any evidence, if there was any, is long gone. Besides, it's not law, it sets a standard to which drivers should adhere. However, when was the last time you read it?. For me, it was the day before I passed my driving test.
A change of matters now.
It seems that we may have to put up with live football being broadcast on Saturday and Sunday. I don't have a problem with a game but it may be five live matches on a Saturday and five on a Sunday. That's at least 900 minutes or 15hrs of football in two days!. Aaaaagggghh.
On even a lighter note, the Yanks are launching a space-shot tonight at around 9.53 pm and at around 9.55pm it will be over Wales. I'll take a look.
:)
-
Is it not time everyone stopped getting so hot under the collar over the Cummings matter?. I think it is.
You may, Llwyd. Please do.
I won't
-
Neither will I.
-
I dont think its anything to do with Dominic Cummiings,but thats my view..time to move on.
-
I'm sorry I can't just stop being angry. He endangered lives more than once, he has no excuse re understanding the guidance as he helped draft them, he had multiple other options that did not involve breaking the guidelines or the law, he does not regret it, that was not an apology, he tried to gaslight the public, the guidelines have been changed to protect him not because it's safe and more people will suffer and die, he has caused me issues which may destroy me personally all because i tried to do the right thing and follow the rules. AFAIC he has metaphorically slapped every person who has suffered but tried to follow the rules, every bereaved family who has had their mourning controlled because they tried to follow the rules, everyone who is struggling with missing family,juggling childcare (without breaking rules), missing out on celebrating family events. The last 2 months have been hard but you could tell yourself it was all for the greater good, to save lives so that it could eventually be over. Well all that effort has all been for nothing, all the good has been undone and there is likely to not only be a second wave but a bigger one. This has pushed me over the edge emotionally and i just can't see any point any more.
-
Don't apologise for staying angry, Pharma, there are plenty of people still angry, me included.
But for goodness sake none of this 'giving up' talk. You do wonderfully.
It's a hard time, but you can do it.
-
To lighten the mood, imagine BoJo the clown as a glove puppet, with the puppeteer in control. Every time BoJo squirms or struggles to give a meaningful answer imagine that finger sticking up his ***
The puppet can't function without the puppeteer.
Jane :-)
-
I too will remain angry.
I served in Northern Ireland and the Falklands and know what it is like to have to comply with orders that I don't like and don't understand. Today's situation is no different. We follow the rules, regulations and laws if for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.
I feel as if I have been personally betrayed.
Regards
Chas
-
Imagine BoJo the clown as a glove puppet, with the puppeteer in control. Every time BoJo squirms or struggles to give a meaningful answer imagine that finger sticking up his ***
The puppet can't function without the puppeteer.
Jane :-)
He doesn't function that well with the puppeteer! ;) ::) His recent performances have been abysmal to say the least.
-
I too will remain angry.
I served in Northern Ireland and the Falklands and know what it is like to have to comply with orders that I don't like and don't understand. Today's situation is no different. We follow the rules, regulations and laws if for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.
I feel as if I have been personally betrayed.
Regards
Chas
For me it feels worse because i absolutely understand the reasons behind the rules. I don't like them in the sense they're not fun and in some senses heartbreaking. However I understand what the rules are trying to do and the science behind it.
-
In my view, the Prime Minister remains tone deaf to the reaction in the country to his unapologetic defence of Dominic Cummings and his 'reasonable' interpretation of very simple rules.
Stay at Home and don't take the risk of spreading the virus across the country.
There are many implications which he seems unaware of
- people feel stupid as they have stuck, painfully, to the rules in really difficult circumstances and now feel regret as well as disillusion at having believed 'we're all in it together' and finding that they're totally naive and stupid, and we're not.
Nothing like feeling your personal sacrifice was unnecessary, and you were too silly to realise it. And it is you who are to blame.
- We need to remain ever cautious and stick to the rules - and now people feel that they don't have to. Why should they? Some people can break the rules, nothing happens to them and they don't even need to apologise.
- Those who have previously tried to stick to the rules - the NHS staff who've prevented families seeing their loved ones in extremis - now, will families challenge their decisions? Well, that's uncomfortable to think of, isn't it.
- And worst of all - lives depend on considered, well communicated information and advice.
Who now feels confident they can trust what the Government says?
Move on? Well, that's an insult from the PM and his self-serving Cabinet supporters in itself.
-
withdrawn
-
[
For me it feels worse because i absolutely understand the reasons behind the rules. I don't like them in the sense they're not fun and in some senses heartbreaking. However I understand what the rules are trying to do and the science behind it.
That makes it sound as if the rest of us don't understand the reasons behind the rules. According to the statistics 80% of the country have been following the rules. It is just the few idiots who think it either doesn't apply to them or that they are untouchable.
-
I cannot brush this under the carpet either - there is no moving on from this.
I am a teacher, for the last 10 weeks I and all my education colleagues around the country have been teaching online, running childcare hubs to enable key workers to do their job, dealing with safeguarding issues, working out how to award grades to students who can't sit exams, working out how we can get students back into school asap in the safest possible way, and generally trying to make sure that there is a 'normality' for children across the country.
We have all been "in this together" - or so I thought. Yes, there was always going to be a few who ignored rules, but truthfully- in my small, rural community there has been no rule flouting. No one has had a party. No one has had friends over. There wasn't even any VE day bunting let alone parties!
For a Government Advisor to then break so many guidelines without any hint of remorse- that is one hell of a kick to the teeth. Fine - drive to your family if you think you are going to be poorly - but what is this utter crap about you having to drive to test your eyesight??? Why would your journalist wife write and vocalise utterly fictitious reports about your time in lockdown? Why do that? Why treat the public as if we are scum to kowtow to our masters?
-
Good evening,
It appears that what he should have done was go to his line manager at the civil service office. He should have explained the facts and asked permission to travel to Durham. Which would probably been allowed but we will never know.
Junior came to visit today, under the new rules. He sat at one end of our table outside with us at the other. A little over 2 mtrs for our 10 seater. He works in IT as a programmer, and we were talking about the track and trace taking place. He said that it would appear that the company that got the job of setting this up is run by none other than Dominic Cummings brother. Now I wonder who put his name forward, 1 guess only please.
John915
-
For a Government Advisor to then break so many guidelines without any hint of remorse- that is one hell of a kick to the teeth. Fine - drive to your family if you think you are going to be poorly - but what is this utter crap about you having to drive to test your eyesight??? Why would your journalist wife write and vocalise utterly fictitious reports about your time in lockdown? Why do that? Why treat the public as if we are scum to kowtow to our masters?
I don't know if you've had a chance, Spidermonkey, to look at the FT analysis of Cummings' statement on Monday (link in my first post on this new thread).
The 'reason' for the Barnard Castle visit is so thin, and the details Cummings gave about his movements on that day, so obviously centred around both the witness he knew about, and those he saw who might pop up as witnesses later, it seems certain there is more to this particular 'jolly' than we know about.
I wonder whether it was his wife's birthday, a nice day, and he had a completely separate meeting with some people from GlaxoSmithKlein who are based in Barnard Castle and who signed an agreement 2 days later to produce C-19 vaccine.
There's definitely something behind it all. Although, with that excuse, he thinks we're all fools and doesn't care that we know he does.
-
FAct check now - she's not
-
He said that it would appear that the company that got the job of setting this up is run by none other than Dominic Cummings brother. Now I wonder who put his name forward, 1 guess only please.
John915
Are you sure? I could only find this.
https://fullfact.org/online/not-dominic-cummings-sister/ (https://fullfact.org/online/not-dominic-cummings-sister/)
-
Just did a check before you posted, Mike
-
Just did a check before you posted, Mike
Beat you to it!
-
I'm multi tasking ;D
-
I'm multi tasking ;D
Are you doing Genealogical research at the same time?? :o ;D
-
Preparing a shopping list for my next delivery, feeding the washing machine and reading the latest online msm ;D ;D ;D
-
I see that Trump is threatening to shut down Twitter because they've been Fact checking him :-X
-
I see that Trump is threatening to shut down Twitter because they've been fact checking him :-X
oops - too much multitasking!
Add - I gather (from Nick Watt, Newsnight) that the 40-60 Con MPs might be giving up with trying to get rid of DC but Boris has lost a lot of good will and there'll be problems for him.
-
Add - I gather (from Nick Watt, Newsnight) that the 40-60 Con MPs might be giving up with trying to get rid of DC but Boris has lost a lot of good will and there'll be problems for him.
Won't do them much good either, if the reason they were trying was because of pressure from their constituents.
-
He said that it would appear that the company that got the job of setting this up is run by none other than Dominic Cummings brother. Now I wonder who put his name forward, 1 guess only please.
John915
Are you sure? I could only find this.
https://fullfact.org/online/not-dominic-cummings-sister/ (https://fullfact.org/online/not-dominic-cummings-sister/)
I'm multi tasking ;D
Are you doing Genealogical research at the same time?? :o ;D
Full Fact cites Ancestry as confirmation of her identity.
-
https://fullfact.org/search/?q=alice+cummings#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=alice%20cummings&gsc.page=1
Add - see also Mike's earlier post.
-
Think it might be best to use a fact checker rather than Ancestry* ;)
https://fullfact.org/
* especially Ancestry with all those dodgy trees.
-
"threatening to shut down Twitter"
Go for it!
-
Think it might be best to use a fact checker rather than Ancestry* ;)
https://fullfact.org/
* especially Ancestry with all those dodgy trees.
https://fullfact.org/online/not-dominic-cummings-sister
"(and we have verified using ancestry.com), the woman referred to is not one of his sisters ..."
How about asking Full Fact to check the veracity of info on Ancestry? They wouldn't have time for anything else.
"No one is immune to the propaganda virus". Can't recall where I saw it.
-
Add - I gather (from Nick Watt, Newsnight) that the 40-60 Con MPs might be giving up with trying to get rid of DC but Boris has lost a lot of good will and there'll be problems for him.
Won't do them much good either, if the reason they were trying was because of pressure from their constituents.
They're safe. 4 years until next election.
-
Think it might be best to use a fact checker rather than Ancestry* ;)
https://fullfact.org/
* especially Ancestry with all those dodgy trees.
If you check FreeBMD it looks as if he only has one sister born 1975 and her name isn't Angela. So she must be the one he went to stay near.
-
If you look at my earlier fact check link, groom, you'll see.
Maiden Stone - you're talking in riddles ::) ::) ::)
I don't think anyone would check Ancestry.
-
This article is part of our work fact checking potentially false pictures, videos and stories on Facebook. You can read more about this—and find out how to report Facebook content—here. For the purposes of that scheme, we’ve rated this claim as false because this woman is not Dominic Cummings’ sister.
-
If you look at my earlier fact check link, groom, you'll see.
Maiden Stone - you're talking in riddles ::) ::) ::)
I don't think anyone would check Ancestry.
Full Fact did. It says so under "Who is the woman the posts are talking about?"
-
I read the other checks. I dislike Ancestry - only use it for DNA and US/Canada records. (I did check on FindMyPast ;D )
I'm thinking all this is dead cat-ish. What are they trying to hide?
-
I'm thinking all this is dead cat-ish. What are they trying to hide?
That may be because they've thrown so many dead cats on tables in the past. It gets so that one suspects everything of being a dead cat.
"File on 4", Tuesday, Radio 4 was about the Cheltenham racing festival and Liverpool's Euro match with a Spanish club in March and their alleged impact on the spread of the epidemic. Both places later shown to be "hotspots" of the epidemic. Liverpool had more cases per capita than nearby Manchester.
Liverpool and Manchester mayors have been critical about the way the recent changes to lockdown were announced without consultation and seemingly without consideration to the situation in northern England.
-
re DC.....In the words of the late Erasmus Bottle, a well known Tyneside raconteur..who prefaced his local history lectures with "All the facts of this story are true, except those which aren't"
-
According to the statistics 80% of the country have been following the rules. It is just the few idiots who think it either doesn't apply to them or that they are untouchable.
I heard a similar figure and was appalled. It always sounds better when percentages are quoted, particularly a number considerably over 50%.
That means 20% haven't been following the rules. That's over 13 million people. To put it into context: London is estimated to have population of just over 9 million, Glasgow is 1.6 million, Birmingham and Liverpool are both a bit under a million.
-
One of the best things to have come out of the DC affair are the songs and parodies on Youtube. For instance:
“I could drive 500 miles“
“I can see clearly now the Covid’s gone. “
“Is this the way to Barnard Castle? “
“The Durham Dash”
-
Just read that the Govt Track and Trace website has crashed already. I think this is the one that tracers use to access and enter info about cases.
(from Sky's Ashish Joshi -@ashishskynews )
Add - link to thread
https://twitter.com/ashishskynews/status/1265910033860222976
-
Boris Johnson thinks we should all move on, "nothing to see here!" he hopes. This story will run & run as Fatty Johnson has been caught with his sweaty mitt in the tuck-shop cookie jar & denies any involvement! Fresh revelations are awaited eagerly, there's big money in this & it will probably end up as a musical. ;D
Skoosh.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XcuN5hZwk
-
Just read that the Govt Track and Trace website has crashed already. I think this is the one that tracers use to access and enter info about cases.
(from Sky's Ashish Joshi -@ashishskynews )
Add - link to thread
https://twitter.com/ashishskynews/status/1265910033860222976
Well there's a surprise!
I don't see how the manual system is going to work. If someone tests positive they have to try and remember everyone that they have been less than 2 metres from for 15 minutes or more in the two days before they showed symptoms. The only people that they legitimately might have been in closer contact with would be members of their own household, who would know that the person was positive anyway.
If the infected person had really been abiding by the rules and social distancing there wouldn't be anyone else. If they hadn't, and had travelled to meet with friends / relatives and had closer contact with them, would they tell the contract tracer and admit they had broken the rules? No, they would contact their friends / relatives privately about their positive test.
If they travelled to work on public transport, they may have been closer than two metres to someone, but they are unlikely to know who they are, so no use to a contact tracer.
If they were closer than two metres to someone in the workplace, then either their employer has not implemented social distancing, not enforcing it or the employees are flouting it. The infected person may know names of fellow employees, sometimes only forenames and would be unlikely to know any contact details for them. The infected person might be reluctant to give names in case some legal action was taken against the employer and it could be traced back to him /her.
-
Interesting study
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/getting-used-to-life-under-lockdown.pdf
-
Thing seem to be getting more complicated rather than easier at the minute! I was wondering about the track and trace - my contact other than husband who I live with and I haven't let him go into shops ( he's older but not in any shielded or health risk group) is limited to whichever supermarket I've been to and I'm limiting that to once a week. Will they fine me by checking my contactless credit card to show I was in the shop at the same time as whoever has been infected or vice versa.
Another question for Gadget- what's the best site to see how the current infections are in the North East. I'm finding a certain North East newspapers reports a little frustrating.
-
Just back from a Hospital appointment and on the way back I passed one of the large B&Q stores and to say the car park was 3/4 full is an understatement, zero queues outside the building so can only surmise that it must have been pretty busy inside.
-
Not quite a million, yet.................................
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-cummings-petition-sacked-nine-lockdown-coronavirus-durham-a9536026.html
https://www.change.org/p/dominic-cummings-must-be-sacked?utm_source=brand_gb
-
https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c259-4ca4-9a82-648ffde71bf0
(free to view)
This is the latest updated excess death statistics from the FT which further down the article breaks down the excess deaths by region.
Clear explanation in the article as to why they use this statistic as a measure; what is the basis for the comparison; why we should be looking at it rather than 'just moving on'.
-
Interesting study
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/getting-used-to-life-under-lockdown.pdf
Fascinating, Gadget - thanks for posting :)
-
Another question for Gadget- what's the best site to see how the current infections are in the North East. I'm finding a certain North East newspapers reports a little frustrating.
This is the best official site for regional, and local info Candleflame:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#category=ltlas&map=rate&area=e06000057
If you scroll down to the listing and map you can select Region, Upper tier or Local authority.
-
Igor
That FT info is very interesting :)
-
Hot from The Guardian's blog:
Dominic Cummings did breach lockdown rules, Durham police say
The prime minister’s most senior adviser did breach lockdown rules when he made the 50-mile trip to Barnard Castle, an investigation by Durham policy has found.
Dominic Cummings claimed he made the journey on 12 April – Easter Sunday and his wife’s birthday – with his wife and four-year-old son to check his eyesight was sound before travelling back to London.
The Telegraph (paywall) reports that the Durham Police investigation has concluded that this was a minor breach of the guidelines that did not warrant any further action.
-
Also:
"Durham police today said they fined two people for travelling hundreds of miles from London to their area during the coronavirus lockdown.
A spokesperson for Durham police confirmed the fines were issued on 8 April against two people from different households who travelled together from London to Peterlee, in County Durham. That trip is about 260 miles and came just over a week after the prime minister’s key aide decided to drive with his wife and child from his London home to his parents’ farm, fearing being struck down by coronavirus."
-
Apparently they were from different households.
-
Apparently they were from different households.
Yes, within the quote. Is the 'two different households' point the reason for the fine, or was it the journey distance, or possibly a combination of the two?
And did either of them suspect that they might be Covid-19 positive?
-
I don't see anything in the local newspapers so far.
Add. Just picked this up from Twitter:
Andrew Gallacher
A source close to No 10 says that "The police are of course entitled to their view"
::) ::) ::)
-
Mr Cummings has attended meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) - the scientific body which gives independent advice that shapes the government's coronavirus response.
Only 63,222 more signatures required.
https://www.change.org/p/dominic-cummings-must-be-sacked?use_react=false
-
And No 10 has issued this
....The prime minister has said he believes Mr Cummings behaved reasonably and legally given all the circumstances and he regards this issue as closed.
:-\
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX_Hi_-DJMY&feature=youtu.be
-
Given the same circumstances,I would have done exactly the same as Mr Cummings,full stop.
-
Given the same circumstances,I would have done exactly the same as Mr Cummings,full stop.
And gone out for a drive a few days later to test your eyesight?
Not the way a driving examiner checks the test candidate's eyesight
-
Given the same circumstances,I would have done exactly the same as Mr Cummings,full stop.
You'd probably enjoy Barnard Castle (when it re-opens). There's the castle - obviously - the Bowes Museum, the shops, David Harper's awful paintings and the river - you can either drive down through the town or walk down past the castle to that. Then there's the Young Offenders Institute and, oh, if you're coming from Durham, give yourself a bit longer than half an hour!
-
Given the same circumstances,I would have done exactly the same as Mr Cummings,full stop.
And gone out for a drive a few days later to test your eyesight?
Not the way a driving examiner checks the test candidate's eyesight
Apparently that's going to be part of the eye test next time you go to an optician. ;D Drive about 30 miles to a castle and back. If you make it back safely you get 50% off your new glasses.
-
Given the same circumstances,I would have done exactly the same as Mr Cummings,full stop.
No worries, Derek, thanks for letting us know.
At the time Dominic Cummings left his home in London and went to Durham, the instructions applying to the UK population were as set out below:
Guidance from Public Health England said that if someone in a household has coronavirus symptoms, “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”. It adds, “You and all household members should remain at home. Do not go to work.”
“Essential travel does not include visits to second homes, camp sites, caravan parks or similar, whether for isolation purposes or holidays. People should remain in their primary residence.”
"people should also, “ask your employer, friends and family to help you to get the things you need to stay at home”."
The well-understood principles behind this were that the UK population should not run the risk of spreading the virus by leaving home, or put pressure on other areas of the country by potentially burdening them with extra patients other than their local population.
Help was available for people with difficulties, and indeed Dominic Cummins had a neice who was willing, and would have been able within the rules, to travel to help his family.
In regard to Dominic Cummings and his refusal to consider that there were any alternatives to his actions (despite the very many people who managed to cope in similar and indeed much worse circumstances)
Integrity (definition):
" the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles"
Moral principles:
" the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group"
Matt Hancock exhorted the public to do their “civic duty” and stay at home when instructed and comply with the requirements of Test and Trace.
Civic duty:
" The concept of civic duty is based on the principle that citizens owe some allegiance to their government and that government in turn protects its citizens."
I don't think Derek has been instrumental in putting together the guidelines which the UK population has been striving to comply with, in the face of an unprecedented pandemic threatening us all.
Dominic Cummings was very much instrumental, and if he came up with the STAY AT HOME slogan, I congratulate him, as I think it has been really clear and understandable.
My issue - as demonstrated by the definitions above - is that he seems to feel that his slogan didn't apply to him.
In doing that, in such a position of power, he has cast doubt and uncertainty across the whole of the UK (if you are different, Derek, well done - a lot of people do seem to disagree), and we can ill do with this just now.
-
.... David Harper's awful paintings ....
https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/daily/2020/05/25/news/dominic-cummings-sighting-could-have-been-me-suggests-tv-antiques-expert-1951679/
;D
-
Mr Cummings has attended meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) - the scientific body which gives independent advice that shapes the government's coronavirus response.
Only 63,222 more signatures required.
https://www.change.org/p/dominic-cummings-must-be-sacked?use_react=false
Several more:
https://www.change.org/p/boris-johnson-dominic-cummings-must-resign-or-be-fired-for-his-breach-of-lockdown-rules?source_location=petitions_browse
https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-dominic-cummings-must-be-removed-as-aide-to-pm-after-breaking-lockdown-rules?source_location=petitions_browse
https://www.change.org/p/boris-johnson-dominic-cummings-should-be-asked-to-resign?source_location=petitions_browse
https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-dominic-cummings-needs-to-resign-or-be-sacked?source_location=petitions_browse
So many, it risks diluting the total number signing, unless people find them all and sign them all
-
Durham Constabulary press statement
28/05/2020
"On 27 March 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father.
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)
On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.
Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.
By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.
Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation.
Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision."
The above is the statement from Durham Police, I notice Norman Smith changed the above statement to fit the lies the BBC are repeating about the trip to London and to Barnard Castle. It is worrying that a reporter with Norman Smith's experience has to resort to lying about the statement.
Cheers
Guy
-
.... David Harper's awful paintings ....
https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/daily/2020/05/25/news/dominic-cummings-sighting-could-have-been-me-suggests-tv-antiques-expert-1951679/
;D
It’s relatively easy to tell the difference between David Harper and the Cummings. DH paints in colours which match his trousers and Cummings dresses like a tramp.
-
That seems to be the case. ;D
-
Personally, I don't think that whether DC acted legally or outside the rules, or whether he should go or stay needs to be uppermost in everybody's minds at present. It really should be allowed to fade away now (for possible resurrection later).
Currently it seems to be top of everyone's mind - only encouraging people to emulate him in some circumstances and thus maybe spread the virus.
If it faded away then are people not more likely to heed the advice/guidelines without this spectre sitting on their shoulder, possibly encourage them to flout the rules.
Pheno
-
"the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation"
"Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken."
For the first quotation, my bold.
I am fully supportive of the fact that we are all innocent until proved guilty, but 'insufficient evidence' doesn't mean that there wasn't any.
The second paragraph clearly demonstrates that if a police officer had discovered the Cummings family on their trip to Barnard Castle, his advice would have been to return to their current Durham residence. If there were no contravention of the lockdown guidance at that stage, then the officer would not need to have done that.
And with regard to 'lies' on the part of various parties, I'm still intrigued by the fact that Dominic Cummings thought it a good idea to tell his Bank Holiday audience from the Rose Garden how prescient he'd been about Coronavirus pandemics and their risks way back last year.
A lie? Sadly, yes. He has been proven to have edited his blog on the date of his return from Durham to show this, when he'd not written anything of the kind at the time.
-
Interesting to read the opinion of the Durham police; opinion is all it is. I would be interested to hear whether that opinion is shared with every other police force between London and Durham. The potential offence was initially committed within the Met’s territory and repeated in several others. Just as, if you’re stopped for speeding at the start of a journey, you’re still expected to stick to the limit for the rest of it.
-
Interesting to read the opinion of the Durham police; opinion is all it is. I would be interested to hear whether that opinion is shared with every other police force between London and Durham. The potential offence was initially committed within the Met’s territory and repeated in several others. Just as, if you’re stopped for speeding at the start of a journey, you’re still expected to stick to the limit for the rest of it.
The Barnard Castle breaking of the regulations of the time is proven.
DC has admitted it, and a complaint was made by someone who saw him there.
In addition, Durham police have said if an officer had seen and stopped DC and his family en route to/from Barnard Castle, they would have given him advice on the guidelines and advised him to return to Durham. As I said in my earlier post, such advice wouldn't have been necessary if the guidelines weren't being broken.
Since the police weren't there at the time, and they say they aren't levying fines retrospectively for the breaking of guidelines, they aren't taking action.
But DC broke the guidelines.
-
But DC broke the guidelines.
And he was, most likely, deeply involved in writing them.
The Secret Barrister's analysis is worth reading.
-
Interesting to read the opinion of the Durham police; opinion is all it is. I would be interested to hear whether that opinion is shared with every other police force between London and Durham. The potential offence was initially committed within the Met’s territory and repeated in several others. Just as, if you’re stopped for speeding at the start of a journey, you’re still expected to stick to the limit for the rest of it.
Sorry Ray but you are totally wrong as the guidance specifically includes -
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
The reason for leaving London was covered by the above.
The dubious part was the Durham to Barnard Castle trip and that is within the jurisdiction of the Durham police force.
Secondly your analogy of a speeding offence is simply a red herring, as every speeding offence is a separate offence. A more accurate one would be if you are stopped in a vehicle with minor defects you are given a defect notice (Form VT5) that protects you for further enforcement on continuation of the journey.
I am sure many people could provide reasonable and legitimate reasons why Dominic Cummings should be sacked but trying to use the two trips in question shows the desperation of a lynch mob.
Cheers
Guy
-
Interesting to read the opinion of the Durham police; opinion is all it is. I would be interested to hear whether that opinion is shared with every other police force between London and Durham. The potential offence was initially committed within the Met’s territory and repeated in several others. Just as, if you’re stopped for speeding at the start of a journey, you’re still expected to stick to the limit for the rest of it.
Sorry Ray but you are totally wrong as the guidance specifically includes -
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
The reason for leaving London was covered by the above.
The dubious part was the Durham to Barnard Castle trip and that is within the jurisdiction of the Durham police force.
Secondly your analogy of a speeding offence is simply a red herring, as every speeding offence is a separate offence. A more accurate one would be if you are stopped in a vehicle with minor defects you are given a defect notice (Form VT5) that protects you for further enforcement on continuation of the journey.
I am sure many people could provide reasonable and legitimate reasons why Dominic Cummings should be sacked but trying to use the two trips in question shows the desperation of a lynch mob.
Cheers
Guy
I am not a desperate lynch mob, I am desperately angry, I feel desperately betrayed by the Government (was feeling a bit that way already). Something not being in contravention of a law does not necessarily mean that it was the right thing to do. I do not buy his excuse that it was his only option to protect his son and I have given it a lot of thought. I consider that his trip to Durham broke the spirit of the law. Furthermore in his press conference he, himself stated that the day his wife called to say that she had symptoms he returned to work that afternoon. That is the complete opposite of what the guidelines say someone from an asymptomatic household should do. Now before you say anything I understand that is not enforcable by law but it was most definitely wrong. It is especially stupid in a job that could be done from home connecting digitally with colleagues. Working with the people at the top of Government is all the more reason that he should have followed all the prescribed steps for reducing spread. The way he and his colleagues have dealt with it since the story broke has compounded my feelings. They have lied to us, they have patronised us, they're sorry we're confused. I'm not confused I am perfectly clear on why I am upset.
-
(Echoing PharmaT, but I'd already written most of this when she posted)
Sorry Ray but you are totally wrong as the guidance specifically includes -
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
The reason for leaving London was covered by the above.
In DC's opinion (and yours, it appears). But which of these required him and his family to make that journey? What was there in Durham that couldn't be provided in London? And why is it thought acceptable for him to travel to a distant family property (lucky him - his family happened to have one spare) when other people were explicitly told to stay put?
And Guy - do you consider it to have been within the letter and/or spirit of the guidelines for DC to have returned to work, even though his wife was thought to have COVID-19 symptoms and he was worried that he might also have the virus?
We're not all useful idiots.
-
DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TEENAGERS ARE DOING?
Near where I live there is a large "Village Green", we are just back from walking our dog there and it is awash with Teenagers in groups, 10 boys having a kick about inside the 5 a side enclosure, 6 girls sat chatting plus many, many more
There was even three boys of about 15 sat on one of the benches smoking spliff / Pot / Weed / ganja / cannabis (whatever you want to call it).
A bit disrespectful towards the hundreds of thousands of frontline staff who have been risking their lives to keep these very same inconsiderate youths and their families safe.
-
Someone who might understand police in Durham:
Durham’s former chief constable Mike Barton said he believes the force statement used the word “might” in relation to Dominic Cummings breaking the regulations as the police could not be seen to be acting as judge and jury.
He said:
It seems to me that any reasonable observer would see that Mr Cummings has not only broken the spirit of the rules, but also the letter.
This is not Durham in the dock - they are still trying to deal with a national emergency - and this will have been an unwelcome distraction and one they have now dealt with, and they would want the public in the North East to observe the rules, unlike Mr Cummings.
-
Interesting to read the opinion of the Durham police; opinion is all it is. I would be interested to hear whether that opinion is shared with every other police force between London and Durham. The potential offence was initially committed within the Met’s territory and repeated in several others. Just as, if you’re stopped for speeding at the start of a journey, you’re still expected to stick to the limit for the rest of it.
Sorry Ray but you are totally wrong as the guidance specifically includes -
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
The reason for leaving London was covered by the above.
The dubious part was the Durham to Barnard Castle trip and that is within the jurisdiction of the Durham police force.
Secondly your analogy of a speeding offence is simply a red herring, as every speeding offence is a separate offence. A more accurate one would be if you are stopped in a vehicle with minor defects you are given a defect notice (Form VT5) that protects you for further enforcement on continuation of the journey.
I am sure many people could provide reasonable and legitimate reasons why Dominic Cummings should be sacked but trying to use the two trips in question shows the desperation of a lynch mob.
Cheers
Guy
Sorry Guy, I’m not. For starters, I said “potential” offence; the ultimate arbiter of whether an offence has been commited is the courts. So far, with respect to the trip as far as Durham, we only have the opinion of the Durham police. Other forces along the way might view the situation differently but none has, so far, expressed a view.
-
DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TEENAGERS ARE DOING?
Near where I live there is a large "Village Green", we are just back from walking our dog there and it is awash with Teenagers in groups, 10 boys having a kick about inside the 5 a side enclosure, 6 girls sat chatting plus many, many more
There was even three boys of about 15 sat on one of the benches smoking spliff / Pot / Weed / ganja / cannabis (whatever you want to call it).
A bit disrespectful towards the hundreds of thousands of frontline staff who have been risking their lives to keep these very same inconsiderate youths and their families safe.
I suggest that phoning 101 will yield a better/more effective response than complaining about this on RC.
-
DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TEENAGERS ARE DOING?
Near where I live there is a large "Village Green", we are just back from walking our dog there and it is awash with Teenagers in groups, 10 boys having a kick about inside the 5 a side enclosure, 6 girls sat chatting plus many, many more
There was even three boys of about 15 sat on one of the benches smoking spliff / Pot / Weed / ganja / cannabis (whatever you want to call it).
A bit disrespectful towards the hundreds of thousands of frontline staff who have been risking their lives to keep these very same inconsiderate youths and their families safe.
Yes I do, this morning she did maths, then geography, then she went into the garden and did her strength training for her athletics (core, squats etc), then she did biology, then I took her to the doctors, I sat in the car because of the current rules in the surgery but I could see the door and she couldn't sneak anywhere. THen we went back up the road and she helped me move some furniture because i've been doing a deep clean, now she is sitting at her desk. She is either doing French or Chemistry but my hip is sore and I've not long sat down so I don't want to get back up. I can however see she is logged into the school app and these are the 2 exercises she had left to do for today.
-
I'm confused. I'm told I must stay two metres from others outwith my household unless I'm a construction worker who can have close contact for fifteen metres with another worker. The track and tracers will only contact me if I've been closer than two metres of a positive tester for more than fifteen minutes. On this basis why can't I just pass someone on the pavement instead of having to dive into the road?
-
Sorry Ray but you are totally wrong as the guidance specifically includes -
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
The reason for leaving London was covered by the above.
Guy - could you tell me which of the above is the reason DC went to Durham? If it is 'for any medical reason' I would assume that meant either to visit a local doctor or hospital preferably in an ambulance. Maybe I'm wrong on this point and most people would consider the best doctor/hospital is 260 miles away. 'Donating blood' has not been mentioned. 'Avoid injury or illness'? I think the opposite was more likely to happen. 'Escape risk or harm'? This is supposedly due to the mob outside his house. Surely a phone call to the police would have been easier. 'Provide care'? Again, not mentioned. 'Help a vulnerable person'? Again not mentioned.
Please explain
Rishile
-
Oh dear, oh dear, another don’t do as I do.....it seems Mr Ian Blackford MP chose to leave his tax payer funded home in London three days after lockdown. He travelled 600 miles to Skye in order to isolate away from his wife Ann who has a lung condition.
His Tweet on the 26th - Returned to Skye from Westminster but into isolation as a precaution away from Ann and everyone else given the prevalence of the virus in London.
Article does not say where his wife was at this time, I sincerely hope he hadn’t left her in London whilst he fled the virus himself....Oh, but it’s ok because MPs had the right to return to their homes. Three days after lock down ?? Tut tut Mr Blackford and there are you calling for DCs resignation or sacking...pots and kettles ?
-
Sorry Ray but you are totally wrong as the guidance specifically includes -
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
The reason for leaving London was covered by the above.
Guy - could you tell me which of the above is the reason DC went to Durham? If it is 'for any medical reason' I would assume that meant either to visit a local doctor or hospital preferably in an ambulance. Maybe I'm wrong on this point and most people would consider the best doctor/hospital is 260 miles away. 'Donating blood' has not been mentioned. 'Avoid injury or illness'? I think the opposite was more likely to happen. 'Escape risk or harm'? This is supposedly due to the mob outside his house. Surely a phone call to the police would have been easier. 'Provide care'? Again, not mentioned. 'Help a vulnerable person'? Again not mentioned.
Please explain
Rishile
If you watch the daily press briefings you will have heard Dr Jenny Harries mention on a number of occasions the guidelines clearly state the exemption would be the "Escape risk or harm" if his wife was suffering from the virus and Dominic Cummings caught it he could become incapacitated very quickly leaving their son at risk of harm, by going to Durham they avoided this potential risk as there was a support system in place there.
Cheers
Guy
-
If that was his justification for going to Durham, it betrays a very cynical attitude towards those who didn't have the option of leaving London. Apparently the support services in London weren't good enough for the likes of him and his family, but everyone else had to just put up with them.
All in it together? That's a laugh.
(I note, Guy, that you haven't answered my question about DC going back to work, yet you have answered a more recent post.)
-
Sorry Ray but you are totally wrong as the guidance specifically includes -
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
The reason for leaving London was covered by the above.
Guy - could you tell me which of the above is the reason DC went to Durham? If it is 'for any medical reason' I would assume that meant either to visit a local doctor or hospital preferably in an ambulance. Maybe I'm wrong on this point and most people would consider the best doctor/hospital is 260 miles away. 'Donating blood' has not been mentioned. 'Avoid injury or illness'? I think the opposite was more likely to happen. 'Escape risk or harm'? This is supposedly due to the mob outside his house. Surely a phone call to the police would have been easier. 'Provide care'? Again, not mentioned. 'Help a vulnerable person'? Again not mentioned.
Please explain
Rishile
If you watch the daily press briefings you will have heard Dr Jenny Harries mention on a number of occasions the guidelines clearly state the exemption would be the "Escape risk or harm" if his wife was suffering from the virus and Dominic Cummings caught it he could become incapacitated very quickly leaving their son at risk of harm, by going to Durham they avoided this potential risk as there was a support system in place there.
Cheers
Guy
Surely this guidance was for anyone without the virus. We were told that if we had even mild symptoms STAY AT HOME. That was mentioned hundreds of times over the past few weeks and is still being mentioned now. The government radio advert I am having forced down my throat at regular intervals clearly says that if you have any symptoms - even if they are mild - you and your family must STAY AT HOME. Track and trace is telling people that if they come into contact with someone who later develops the virus they must STAY AT HOME. What is that DC didn't understand?
Rishile
-
Oh dear, oh dear, another don’t do as I do.....it seems Mr Ian Blackford MP chose to leave his tax payer funded home in London three days after lockdown. He travelled 600 miles to Skye in order to isolate away from his wife Ann who has a lung condition.
His Tweet on the 26th - Returned to Skye from Westminster but into isolation as a precaution away from Ann and everyone else given the prevalence of the virus in London.
Article does not say where his wife was at this time, I sincerely hope he hadn’t left her in London whilst he fled the virus himself....Oh, but it’s ok because MPs had the right to return to their homes. Three days after lock down ?? Tut tut Mr Blackford and there are you calling for DCs resignation or sacking...pots and kettles ?
Every MP who does not have their main home in London has accommodation paid for by the tax payer, so he is not unique in that. He is probably one at least 500 or more in this position, with the exception of the Sein Fein MPs who do not take up their seat in Parliament.
As far as I am aware MPs are not furloughed and have been free to attend parliament, social distanced of course, during this period when appropriate, and therefore free to travel to and from their place of work. Some have. Robert Jenrick, for example, choose to relocate his family to his 2nd or 3rd home while he continued to attend Downing Street and Parliament, travelling back and forth from that home as necessary. There have been various MPs in Parliament over the period, Jacob Rhys-Mogg, for example, whose constituency is in Somerset and has attended parliament.
The only crime that he has committed seems to be that he stayed for 3 days before returning to his family home. I suspect that he was not the only one who did not return home immediately, and may have had outstanding work to complete, and of course he could have travelled back and forth from Skye if he had felt it was necessary. He, however, has appeared to remain on Skye for the whole period, attending parliament from his home via video link.
With regard to self isolating when he got home, I think that was the sensible thing to do. He did not have or suspect he had the virus, but to safeguard the health of his wife (who I assume lives on Skye as his tweet seems to indicate), and in view of the amount of MPs who contracted the virus, it was reasonable to just in case. I would hope that all MPs returning to their main home would have taken similar action in order to protect their families.
The difference between Ian Blackford was that he didn't think he had the virus and is free to travel to and from his place of work, just as Dominic Cummings has travelled to and from work before his trip to Durham and following his return.
If people are unhappy with Ian Blackford's actions or indeed any MP whatever their politics, the party can reprimand them if they think its necessary but ultimately it is the responsibility of their local constituency party to deselect them or voters in their constituency not to vote for them.
-
How disappointing - the launch of Elon Musk's Space X was called off last night due to bad weather. My granddaughter had been allowed by her mother to stay up to watch it on tele last night and I didn't get to see it hurtling over Wales. Better luck on Saturday.
Uncle Drakeford will be making his announcement tomorrow about what freedom he is willing to let us have here in Wales. If it's what is being reported - probably deliberately leaked - it will not be the slightest use to me and my wife or our family and grandchildren living in England.
Oh deep joy. :-X
:)
-
Sorry Ray but you are totally wrong as the guidance specifically includes -
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
The reason for leaving London was covered by the above.
Guy - could you tell me which of the above is the reason DC went to Durham? If it is 'for any medical reason' I would assume that meant either to visit a local doctor or hospital preferably in an ambulance. Maybe I'm wrong on this point and most people would consider the best doctor/hospital is 260 miles away. 'Donating blood' has not been mentioned. 'Avoid injury or illness'? I think the opposite was more likely to happen. 'Escape risk or harm'? This is supposedly due to the mob outside his house. Surely a phone call to the police would have been easier. 'Provide care'? Again, not mentioned. 'Help a vulnerable person'? Again not mentioned.
Please explain
Rishile
If you watch the daily press briefings you will have heard Dr Jenny Harries mention on a number of occasions the guidelines clearly state the exemption would be the "Escape risk or harm" if his wife was suffering from the virus and Dominic Cummings caught it he could become incapacitated very quickly leaving their son at risk of harm, by going to Durham they avoided this potential risk as there was a support system in place there.
Cheers
Guy
He had options in London. In fact many more options than many other families had. Either single parent families or where both parents were ill. Also the lockdown guidance was that people could have travelled to give aid so his family in Durham travelling to pick up their son should the need arise would have been safer. There are thousands of families out there that have tried to soldier on because they were told by the same Government that that was the correct thing to do. Furthermore, on the subject of the 'spirit of the law' the clause allowing someone to travel to avoid harm was intended to allow victims of domestic violence to escape to a place of safety. DC would have known the intent of this clause and is twisting and exploiting it. I will reiterate that in many occasions not breaking the law is insufficient to say that someone has done the right thing or acted honourably. Is actions and even more so his defence is a slap in the face to everyone who struggled, suffered, and yet kept going and kept doing the right thing.
My colleague contracted Covid after being left in the position of refusing care or working without PPE, she could have travelled cross country to family but no, she set up system where food (microwavable) was delivered contact free, a check in system to ensure help was sent should she worsen, and a list of people to come and get her child should she become completely incapable. She did consider jumping in the car and driving while ill. They're saying she was irresponsible and did not love her child enough.
My daugher's Grt Uncle died in Co Durham (from Covid), his wife had to grieve alone with phone calls and food deliveries only as support. They are saying we didn't love them enough to break lockdown because we 'did the right thing'.
It is my friend's husband's funeral next week. Their daughter cannot be there due to the distance and none of us can go and support her. They're saying we don't care enough.
I have had to make so many bad news phone calls, comfort people who cannot visit those they are worried about they are saying they don't care as they didn't break lockdown to see them. I'm telling you very much did care,so many distraught people. These people have been metaphorically slapped in the face.
-
Yes, Pharma.
And that is why it is even more distressing to be told to 'move on'.
There are many people who agree with you and more than 950 thousand have signed a petition to say so.
If other people hold other opinions that is their right. However, minimising yours (and mine) by suggesting that 'it is all over' and we should move on, is not helpful.
-
Yes, Pharma.
-
No one can really "move on" till they have dealt with unfinished business. The person who should be dealing with this unfinished business is the one urging us to move on.
Regards
Chas
-
My colleague contracted Covid after being left in the position of refusing care or working without PPE, she could have travelled cross country to family but no, she set up system where food (microwavable) was delivered contact free, a check in system to ensure help was sent should she worsen, and a list of people to come and get her child should she become completely incapable. She did consider jumping in the car and driving while ill. They're saying she was irresponsible and did not love her child enough.
My daugher's Grt Uncle died in Co Durham (from Covid), his wife had to grieve alone with phone calls and food deliveries only as support. They are saying we didn't love them enough to break lockdown because we 'did the right thing'.
It is my friend's husband's funeral next week. Their daughter cannot be there due to the distance and none of us can go and support her. They're saying we don't care enough.
Who is accusing you and others of not loving their child enough or not caring enough because they are unable to attend funerals? Seems an odd, unreasonable and judgemental thing to say under the circumstances when all you are doing is following the guidelines to avoid spreading the virus further ....
-
As far as Boris Johnson is concerned the Cumming's affair is over and no matter what the vast majority of the population think he can't or won't accept that he's done wrong. In the briefing today he closed down Robert Peston's question and said he wasn't going to let the two others answer. They have very cleverly twisted the rules to suit them now saying it allows one thing when most of us read it and took it to mean another.
"for any medical reason, to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, provide care or help a vulnerable person"
I guess most of us took the "provide care or help a vulnerable person" as meaning that we could go to them to help them if needed, not that we could take a vulnerable person anywhere we liked to get care. If they had known that I expect thousands of parents, especially single ones, would have left home and taken their children elsewhere. Why was the child considered vulnerable anyway - he is in the very age group that is now being sent back to school? I find it very strange as well that there was no one at all locally they could call on for help if it had been needed. Do they have no friends?
The same with the "avoid injury or illness" So in theory, to avoid illness I could have gone to stay elsewhere in order to avoid crowded places in case I got ill?
No, we all did exactly as told and didn't look for loopholes.
-
It is my friend's husband's funeral next week. Their daughter cannot be there due to the distance and none of us can go and support her. They're saying we don't care enough.
It's not a case of not caring enough - if the law in Scotland is the same as in England at the moment, you couldn't go anyway. The number of people allowed is minimal and restricted to very close family only. I know of a case where a vicar died and the only people allowed at the funeral were his wife and daughters - no relations and certainly no friends.
-
No one can really "move on" till they have dealt with unfinished business. The person who should be dealing with this unfinished business is the one urging us to move on.
Regards
Chas
There is only one person that needs to "move on" and we all know that is the arrogant, lying hypocrite DC. If BJ really can't bear to be parted from him then he should go too. They could retire to Barnard Castle together.
I think it was the moving on comments that finally pushed me into thumping off an e-mail to my local MP. Very cathartic setting down in writing exactly why I am so angry and clicking 'send'!
Of course I know that it is unlikely to make a real difference and I might as well shout in the wind but crumbs I feel better!
Goodnight all, Tony.
-
Dominic Cummings like other court favourites before him, the earl of Strafford & Piers Gaveston, it won't end well! ;D
Skoosh.
-
It is my friend's husband's funeral next week. Their daughter cannot be there due to the distance and none of us can go and support her. They're saying we don't care enough.
It's not a case of not caring enough - if the law in Scotland is the same as in England at the moment, you couldn't go anyway. The number of people allowed is minimal and restricted to very close family only. I know of a case where a vicar died and the only people allowed at the funeral were his wife and daughters - no relations and certainly no friends.
My point is that those in power defending Cummings have said that anyone who cares about their loved ones would do the same as he did i.e. break lockdown guidance. Since we're keeping to lockdown guidance despite it being difficult then effectively those people are saying we don't care enough and that's insulting.
-
My colleague contracted Covid after being left in the position of refusing care or working without PPE, she could have travelled cross country to family but no, she set up system where food (microwavable) was delivered contact free, a check in system to ensure help was sent should she worsen, and a list of people to come and get her child should she become completely incapable. She did consider jumping in the car and driving while ill. They're saying she was irresponsible and did not love her child enough.
My daugher's Grt Uncle died in Co Durham (from Covid), his wife had to grieve alone with phone calls and food deliveries only as support. They are saying we didn't love them enough to break lockdown because we 'did the right thing'.
It is my friend's husband's funeral next week. Their daughter cannot be there due to the distance and none of us can go and support her. They're saying we don't care enough.
Who is accusing you and others of not loving their child enough or not caring enough because they are unable to attend funerals? Seems an odd, unreasonable and judgemental thing to say under the circumstances when all you are doing is following the guidelines to avoid spreading the virus further ....
Each and every cabinet member who has gone on live TV and argued that anyone who cared enough about their loved ones would have done the same as DC ie break lockdown. A complete and utter slap in the face to each and every person who has obeyed the guidelines despite it causing personal heartache.
-
Well as of next week I get a little slice of "normality" back to work at school. We normally have @1800 students but numbers are low so I've only been in a couple of days so far. Year 10 and 12 return first starting on 15th June. I have a fair amount of trepidation over this and still unsure of what to expect. My confidence has taken a hit and patience with some people I have been unfortunate to come across whilst on my daily dog walk has been lacking. We have to stay alert as more people push boundaries we open up new problems.
Well off for our doggy walk joggers beware.....respect my space.
Tazzie
-
Just been sent a nice photo bearing the legend! "Barnard Castle & Site for Sore Eyes!" ;D
Skoosh.
-
I’m surprised that the verb to be “cummingsed” hasn’t, as yet, entered the vocabulary.
-
Each and every cabinet member who has gone on live TV and argued that anyone who cared enough about their loved ones would have done the same as DC ie break lockdown. A complete and utter slap in the face to each and every person who has obeyed the guidelines despite it causing personal heartache.
Sorry but you are only listening and hearing one side, as there are just as many who are saying that he was irresponsible and if he’d really cared about the safety of his child he’d never have driven all that way, especially as his wife was supposed to have been ill at the time. Anything couLd have happened on the journey, putting the child in danger.
-
Just been sent a nice photo bearing the legend! "Barnard Castle & Site for Sore Eyes!" ;D
Skoosh.
I’ve just had one that says “ Barnard Castle has been declared a sacred site as miracles happen there, eye sight is restored. “
-
Each and every cabinet member who has gone on live TV and argued that anyone who cared enough about their loved ones would have done the same as DC ie break lockdown. A complete and utter slap in the face to each and every person who has obeyed the guidelines despite it causing personal heartache.
Sorry but you are only listening and hearing one side, as there are just as many who are saying that he was irresponsible and if he’d really cared about the safety of his child he’d never have driven all that way, especially as his wife was supposed to have been ill at the time. Anything couLd have happened on the journey, putting the child in danger.
Not those at the top, the ones making the rules, the ones I'm really angry at right now. The ones saying I must move on and draw a line under it.
-
My colleague contracted Covid after being left in the position of refusing care or working without PPE, she could have travelled cross country to family but no, she set up system where food (microwavable) was delivered contact free, a check in system to ensure help was sent should she worsen, and a list of people to come and get her child should she become completely incapable. She did consider jumping in the car and driving while ill. They're saying she was irresponsible and did not love her child enough.
My daugher's Grt Uncle died in Co Durham (from Covid), his wife had to grieve alone with phone calls and food deliveries only as support. They are saying we didn't love them enough to break lockdown because we 'did the right thing'.
It is my friend's husband's funeral next week. Their daughter cannot be there due to the distance and none of us can go and support her. They're saying we don't care enough.
Who is accusing you and others of not loving their child enough or not caring enough because they are unable to attend funerals? Seems an odd, unreasonable and judgemental thing to say under the circumstances when all you are doing is following the guidelines to avoid spreading the virus further ....
Each and every cabinet member who has gone on live TV and argued that anyone who cared enough about their loved ones would have done the same as DC ie break lockdown. A complete and utter slap in the face to each and every person who has obeyed the guidelines despite it causing personal heartache.
I don’t think you can or should take the cabinet ministers comments to mean that because you and others are following the guidelines that you do not love or care for your own friends and family .... I don’t think that is what they are saying.
But yes, your anger is understandable.
-
I don’t think you can or should take the cabinet ministers comments to mean that because you and others are following the guidelines that you do not love or care for your own friends and family .... I don’t think that is what they are saying.
But yes, your anger is understandable.
I agree. People are hearing things in different ways and interpreting them differently. The guidelines were put in place by those very people who then twisted them to cover up what they did and make it seem as if it was right. They are hypocrites, so why take any notice of what they say, they certainly shouldn’t send you on a guilt trip. Every single person who has any decency is angry, so don’t feel it is just you PharmaT.
-
He had options in London. In fact many more options than many other families had.
You are simply making assumptions he did, if not perhaps you can tell the forum just what those personal options were.
Either single parent families or where both parents were ill. Also the lockdown guidance was that people could have travelled to give aid so his family in Durham travelling to pick up their son should the need arise would have been safer.
So if both Dominc and his wife died in the night (many people have died withing a few hours of showing symptoms) the 4 year old could phone his relations in Durham and arrange for them to pick him up
There are thousands of families out there that have tried to soldier on because they were told by the same Government that that was the correct thing to do. Furthermore, on the subject of the 'spirit of the law' the clause allowing someone to travel to avoid harm was intended to allow victims of domestic violence to escape to a place of safety. DC would have known the intent of this clause and is twisting and exploiting it. I will reiterate that in many occasions not breaking the law is insufficient to say that someone has done the right thing or acted honourably. Is actions and even more so his defence is a slap in the face to everyone who struggled, suffered, and yet kept going and kept doing the right thing.
The example of victims of abuse was just one example of many situations where travel was permitted
My colleague contracted Covid after being left in the position of refusing care or working without PPE, she could have travelled cross country to family but no, she set up system where food (microwavable) was delivered contact free, a check in system to ensure help was sent should she worsen, and a list of people to come and get her child should she become completely incapable. She did consider jumping in the car and driving while ill. They're saying she was irresponsible and did not love her child enough.
No they are not it is only you that is suggesting that, as you mention she had options and made her choice to stay where she was.
My daugher's Grt Uncle died in Co Durham (from Covid), his wife had to grieve alone with phone calls and food deliveries only as support. They are saying we didn't love them enough to break lockdown because we 'did the right thing'.
It is my friend's husband's funeral next week. Their daughter cannot be there due to the distance and none of us can go and support her. They're saying we don't care enough.
I have had to make so many bad news phone calls, comfort people who cannot visit those they are worried about they are saying they don't care as they didn't break lockdown to see them. I'm telling you very much did care,so many distraught people. These people have been metaphorically slapped in the face.
Who is this “They” I have not heard anyone saying that.
The biggest problem I have seen is people believe certain newspapers and even the BBC who are using the covid-19 outbreak as a weapon to try to get rid of someone they object to by misquoting what is said. The UK has long past the time when lynch mobs could hunt down and string up their victims but these groups still have that mentality.
Cheers
Guy
-
I typed a long reply explaining the options in London, explaining silent hypoxia that you refer to, explaining the reasoning behind the clauses and which clauses were intended for which purposes (yes I was privy to some of the discussions before they were introduced), explained how safety could have been maintained (better in fact) without going against the guidelines and pushing the boundaries. I explained why I consider the Government have said what they did. Then it disappeared and I cannot be bothered retyping what would have needed to be over 2 posts as I would be wasting my time as you made it clear that you consider me to be overreacting and to be incapable of understanding no matter what I say and I have work to do.
-
Top marks to Mr Cummings in doing what he instictlively thought was right for his family.
-
Top marks to Mr Cummings in doing what he instictlively thought was right for his family.
And to hell with all the rest of us.
I'm sorry, Derek, but if we all take that attitude, many more people will die.
If we are to fight this pandemic, we need to consider everyone.
And if there are other alternatives to potentially taking a C-19 positive person, in a car (with amplified infection chances) across the country to put pressure on other NHS services, then 'instinctively' we should think of those alternatives.
Especially if we are fortunate enough to have alternatives.
And if - instinctively - we do something which other people point out in hindsight was not the right action to take, then the least we can do is apologise.
Not keep justifying our own selfish actions and condemning others.
-
Just been sent a nice photo bearing the legend! "Barnard Castle & Site for Sore Eyes!" ;D
Skoosh.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Doesn’t take people long to find a bit of wry humour
-
Top marks to Mr Cummings in doing what he instictlively thought was right for his family.
Just what would have happened if everyone had done the same thing - got in their car and driven miles to relatives so they could help with childcare if needed? A good percentage of the country would have been on the move and away from their permanent residence.
-
So if both Dominic and his wife both died in the night (many people have died within a few hours of showing symptoms) etc etc
Isn’t it fortunate that he had the choice 😡 How the devil do you think other families have had to cope.
I personally know a couple living in London who have both had Covid 19, they also have two children and grandparents here in Sussex. They had the opportunity to leave London when the husband first felt unwell, the wife considered getting out of London but did they did not as they felt it morally wrong to inflict themselves on local doctors and services.
Both husband and wife were lucky they only had mild symptoms and have both made a full recovery.
It’s Cummings attitude that makes me boil, if he’d admitted that with hindsight he had perhaps made the wrong decision and at the very least said sorry 😡
The fact that it was both his Mother’s and his wife’s birthdays......he thinks we just came down in the last shower 😡
-
Given that Cummings drove 260 miles to his parents home while he and /or his wife were showing symptoms of Covid19 to a place on his parents farm (nothing very much you know, just concrete blocks really) where they could self isolate...he THEN drove 30 miles to Barnard Castle, which he says took half an hour. On that basis he was driving at an average of 60 miles an hour. The sto0pping distance at that speed is 240 ft/55 metres, of which 18 metres are thinking distance.
The drivers physical condition is another factor. Cummings admitted he wasn't 100%.,
The legal minimum distance for eyesight is 20 metres or about 67 feet to see a 3.1 inch number plate. He could easily therefore have checked that at the "cottage" where he wasn't supposed to be.How was he to know he wouldn't feel worse..what then? he said he felt sick when they got there, hence sat by the river for a while. And they would have lied about that if they hadn't been spotted and the number plate noted.
Or if they'd had an accident or the car broke down...
So in conclusion he's stuck 2 fingers up to the thousands of front line workers . all because the rules don't apply to them...
And he didn't even have the grace to apologise to all the thousands of folk affected by and who nevertheless abide by the rules. which it seems don't apply to him and his kind.
-
Top marks to Mr Cummings in doing what he instictlively thought was right for his family.
And to hell with all the rest of us.
I'm sorry, Derek, but if we all take that attitude, many more people will die.
If we are to fight this pandemic, we need to consider everyone.
And if there are other alternatives to potentially taking a C-19 positive person, in a car (with amplified infection chances) across the country to put pressure on other NHS services, then 'instinctively' we should think of those alternatives.
Especially if we are fortunate enough to have alternatives.
And if - instinctively - we do something which other people point out in hindsight was not the right action to take, then the least we can do is apologise.
Not keep justifying our own selfish actions and condemning others.
No need for saying sorry Igor,none of what most said on here cuts any ice with me,and I would'nt know what being selfish is...........most of the argument from the media and elswhere is from the anti-brexit,anti Boris and Cummings brigade...the wickness,cruelty and plain ignorance in front of Mr Cummings property and his wife and child is absolutely disgusting....draw a line end of story.
-
There's this really strange concept that it is possible to disapprove of more than one thing at a time. I disapprove of what Cummings did and I also disapprove of people gathering and harrassing people outside their own home. especially where there are children present. But I cannot draw a line under it especially while they refuse to acknowledge the danger of the actions, while they patronise me, while the laugh us stupid people following regulations, while the change guidelines not becuase the figures suggest it is safe to do so but simply to protect one person who cannot apologise or accept responsibility for what they have done, while the continue to imply I don't care enough, that i am just confused, that my feelings are invalid. And now I get to add wicked to the list. Lovely!
Edit: My feelings on this are nothing to do with Brexit, I consider it a completely separate issue. What's more I can categorically say that I would be angry at anyone acting this way, including my own family. Who he is is only relevant to my views on the matter in as far as he was one of the architects of the guidelines he ran roughshod over and adapted to his own wants and to me that is an aggravating factor. If someone is in a position of power they have a moral duty (IMO) to lead by example especially when the rules they are asking people to follow are difficult. I am not a member of any political party and try and consider each issue on it's own merit.
-
And now I get to add wicked to the list. Lovely!
Now you're just being silly again. You know perfectly well that no-one has called you wicked. It's not all about you.
-
Top marks to Mr Cummings in doing what he instictlively thought was right for his family.
And to hell with all the rest of us.
I'm sorry, Derek, but if we all take that attitude, many more people will die.
If we are to fight this pandemic, we need to consider everyone.
And if there are other alternatives to potentially taking a C-19 positive person, in a car (with amplified infection chances) across the country to put pressure on other NHS services, then 'instinctively' we should think of those alternatives.
Especially if we are fortunate enough to have alternatives.
And if - instinctively - we do something which other people point out in hindsight was not the right action to take, then the least we can do is apologise.
Not keep justifying our own selfish actions and condemning others.
No need for saying sorry Igor,none of what most said on here cuts any ice with me,and I would'nt know what being selfish is...........most of the argument from the media and elswhere is from the anti-brexit,anti Boris and Cummings brigade...the wickness,cruelty and plain ignorance in front of Mr Cummings property and his wife and child is absolutely disgusting....draw a line end of story.
Thank you, Derek, that none of the heart-felt comments here 'cut any ice' with you. I respect your opinion, although I absolutely disagree with it.
I find it hard to believe that any of us wouldn't know 'what being selfish is', but you can of course only speak for yourself.
My comments are absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, anti-Boris or anti-Cummings, so you don't need to add me to your "brigade".
Let's agree to disagree, shall we.
We're all in this together, and I've got your back even if you've not got mine.
-
Either single parent families or where both parents were ill. Also the lockdown guidance was that people could have travelled to give aid so his family in Durham travelling to pick up their son should the need arise would have been safer.
So if both Dominc and his wife died in the night (many people have died withing a few hours of showing symptoms) the 4 year old could phone his relations in Durham and arrange for them to pick him up
Guy
DC and his wife are both under 50 and the likelihood that they would both die within 24 hours of contracting the virus, while not impossible, is improbable. Thousands of families will have faced this situation over the last few months. Some families face this all the time for reason of illness other than covid. The internet and local news are scattered with stories of children as young as 3 phoning the emergency services because mum or dad has collapsed or fallen due to a health condition.
I understand where Pharma is coming from. The Government has said that DC acted in the best interests of his family and acted with "integrity" and the implication that I take from that is those who faced with the same or similar scenario and didn't take the same action and stayed at home don't have that same integrity.
The inference is that as long as you act in the best interests in your family, then its fine .
If Robert Jenrick visited his parents "to take supplies" and was acting in the best interests of his elderly parents, one of them over 70 putting them in the clinically vulnerable group, and did not apologise for his trip, then why was the same standard not applied to Stephen Kinnock, who did apologise. His parents are over 70 and in the same clinically vulnerable group as Mr Jenricks. Was Stephen Kinnock not also acting in his families best interests, taking supplies to his vulnerable elderly parents. Accepted it was his father's birthday, but would his "breaking of the regulations" been more acceptable if he had gone the day before or the day after.
No need for saying sorry Igor,none of what most said on here cuts any ice with me,and I would'nt know what being selfish is...........most of the argument from the media and elswhere is from the anti-brexit,anti Boris and Cummings brigade...the wickness,cruelty and plain ignorance in front of Mr Cummings property and his wife and child is absolutely disgusting....draw a line end of story.
I don't think that anyone would condone the scenes outside DCs home, and it is absolutely inappropriate.
If you accept that the arguments that the condemnation is only from the anti-Brexit group, which I don't, then you have to accept that Robert Jenrick and Dominic Cummings did no wrong as because they are pro Brexit and Stephen Kinnock acted wrongly because he was anti Brexit.
-
Typo, should be, "Barnard Castle, A Site for Sore Eyes!" ;D
The Wee Ginger Dug here,
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2020/05/27/not-better-together/
Skoosh.
-
I find myself in agreement with the likes of Julia Hartley - Brewer, Peter Bone, Steve Baker and Tim Montgomerie - all noted Brexiteers - for the first time in my life and all of whom believe that DC ought to go. The anti Brexit line just does not wash.
William
-
Given that Cummings drove 260 miles to his parents home while he and /or his wife were showing symptoms of Covid19 to a place on his parents farm (nothing very much you know, just concrete blocks really) where they could self isolate
Sounds like just the place for a "straightforward shooting weekend".
-
So if both Dominc and his wife died in the night (many people have died withing a few hours of showing symptoms) the 4 year old could phone his relations in Durham and arrange for them to pick him up
It was very fortunate for the child, then, that his parents didn't die en route to Durham. Mind you, since DC said he covered 30 miles in 30 minutes on ordinary roads, some of which are subject to a 30 mph speed limit, maybe he thought he could do the 250 or so miles in well under 4 hours and it was worth taking a chance. It's not like being ill or having passengers who were ill would make him slow down, is it?
The above is the statement from Durham Police, I notice Norman Smith changed the above statement to fit the lies the BBC are repeating about the trip to London and to Barnard Castle. It is worrying that a reporter with Norman Smith's experience has to resort to lying about the statement.
The biggest problem I have seen is people believe certain newspapers and even the BBC who are using the covid-19 outbreak as a weapon to try to get rid of someone they object to by misquoting what is said. The UK has long past the time when lynch mobs could hunt down and string up their victims but these groups still have that mentality.
You make some quite serious allegations about the press and BBC here, but they cannot be treated as credible unless you provide some evidence. How did they lie or misquote? Please tell us what they said or wrote, with a link to the source, and let us read it for ourselves. Otherwise what you are saying is just hearsay, and no better than what you are complaining about in others.
Finally, I repeat my question of yesterday afternoon, which you have still not answered:
And Guy - do you consider it to have been within the letter and/or spirit of the guidelines for DC to have returned to work, even though his wife was thought to have COVID-19 symptoms and he was worried that he might also have the virus?
-
So if both Dominc and his wife died in the night (many people have died withing a few hours of showing symptoms) the 4 year old could phone his relations in Durham and arrange for them to pick him up
It was very fortunate for the child, then, that his parents didn't die en route to Durham. Mind you, since DC said he covered 30 miles in 30 minutes on ordinary roads, some of which are subject to a 30 mph speed limit, maybe he thought he could do the 250 or so miles in well under 4 hours and it was worth taking a chance. It's not like being ill or having passengers who were ill would make him slow down, is it?
Did he cover 30 miles in 30 minutes, do you know where his father's farm is it could be less than 30 miles or it could be more?
The above is the statement from Durham Police, I notice Norman Smith changed the above statement to fit the lies the BBC are repeating about the trip to London and to Barnard Castle. It is worrying that a reporter with Norman Smith's experience has to resort to lying about the statement.
The biggest problem I have seen is people believe certain newspapers and even the BBC who are using the covid-19 outbreak as a weapon to try to get rid of someone they object to by misquoting what is said. The UK has long past the time when lynch mobs could hunt down and string up their victims but these groups still have that mentality.
You make some quite serious allegations about the press and BBC here, but they cannot be treated as credible unless you provide some evidence. How did they lie or misquote? Please tell us what they said or wrote, with a link to the source, and let us read it for ourselves. Otherwise what you are saying is just hearsay, and no better than what you are complaining about in others.
The Durham Police statement of 28 May 2020 states-
“Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.”
I recorded the BBC News on the 28th May and transcribed what Norman Smith stated just after the news of the police statement was released.
Norman Smith stated the Durham Police stated - “...but the trip to Barnard Castle was a minor breach. However they are not going to take any action, they say they record it as a minor brach of the rules and had a police officer stopped Dominic Cummings on that day because he wasn't putting social distancing or anyone else at risk the police officer would probably have said look you can't do that go home behave yourself, and there would be no further action.”
The differences may seem small, but in a high profile incident such as they even subtle differences change the meaning considerably
Finally, I repeat my question of yesterday afternoon, which you have still not answered:
And Guy - do you consider it to have been within the letter and/or spirit of the guidelines for DC to have returned to work, even though his wife was thought to have COVID-19 symptoms and he was worried that he might also have the virus?
I view the trip to Durham as legal and according to not only the Coronavirus Act 2020 but also according to the 2020 No. 250 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.
As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness and I used to take drivers who's driving I was responsible for on a test drive before they could drive coaches when I was the person holding the National & International CPCs for the coach firm they worked for. The BBC like many others tried to make out it was an eyesight test but in reality it was a fitness to drive test he took.
Cheers
Guy
-
As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness
Just where does it say that is acceptable in the Highway Code? I doubt very much if that would be accepted as an excuse if the person doing it had an accident and killed someone. You are either fit to drive or you aren’t. If you think you need to go on a test drive then you obviously aren’t sure you are fit to drive and shouldn’t do it! Not only are you putting your life and that of any passengers at risk, but you are also endangering other road users.
-
The, so called, “farm” is “North Lodge”; on the western side of the A167 and backing onto the Durham City Golf Club. It’s between 25 and 30 miles to Barney from there but exactly how far depends upon where in Barney he went.
As I’ve said previously, you don’t just “find yourself on the edge of...” town as from the Durham direction the edge is only a couple of hundred yards from the centre. The river, on the other hand, which gets an honourable mention, is out the other side of town - down the main street, round the castle, down the hill and over the bridge - and further from the centre than what I’d imagine someone thinking they’d arrived on the edge of town. They could, of course, have parked at the top and walked down which is, in fact, shorter.
Has anyone bothered to ask whether Mrs Cummings can drive?
-
Has anyone bothered to ask whether Mrs Cummings can drive?
The first sentence of the (misleading) article Mary Wakefield (Mrs Cummings) wrote for the Spectator about their C-19 lockdown mentions her driving.
Yes, she can drive
-
Finally, I repeat my question of yesterday afternoon, which you have still not answered:
And Guy - do you consider it to have been within the letter and/or spirit of the guidelines for DC to have returned to work, even though his wife was thought to have COVID-19 symptoms and he was worried that he might also have the virus?
I view the trip to Durham as legal and according to not only the Coronavirus Act 2020 but also according to the 2020 No. 250 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.
As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness and I used to take drivers who's driving I was responsible for on a test drive before they could drive coaches when I was the person holding the National & International CPCs for the coach firm they worked for. The BBC like many others tried to make out it was an eyesight test but in reality it was a fitness to drive test he took.
That's all very interesting, but now please would you answer the question? It's nothing to do with going to Durham or fitness to drive etc, but whether it was right for someone who had potentially been exposed to Covid-19 should leave the house and return to work. (To avoid any doubt, I am referring to what happened before the Durham trip.)
-
Finally, I repeat my question of yesterday afternoon, which you have still not answered:
And Guy - do you consider it to have been within the letter and/or spirit of the guidelines for DC to have returned to work, even though his wife was thought to have COVID-19 symptoms and he was worried that he might also have the virus?
I view the trip to Durham as legal and according to not only the Coronavirus Act 2020 but also according to the 2020 No. 250 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.
As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness and I used to take drivers who's driving I was responsible for on a test drive before they could drive coaches when I was the person holding the National & International CPCs for the coach firm they worked for. The BBC like many others tried to make out it was an eyesight test but in reality it was a fitness to drive test he took.
That's all very interesting, but now please would you answer the question? It's nothing to do with going to Durham or fitness to drive etc, but whether it was right for someone who had potentially been exposed to Covid-19 should leave the house and return to work. (To avoid any doubt, I am referring to what happened before the Durham trip.)
And I will add to what Arthur said that this action was on that DC himself stated in his press conference that he had done on the first day of his wife's illness and not based on hearsay from the media.
-
The Ellon brewer "Brewdog!" has released a new "Hazy Durham IPA," fanfare of trumpets!!
I give youse, "Barnard Castle Eye Test!" ;D
Skoosh.
-
The Ellon brewer "Brewdog!" has released a new "Hazy Durham IPA," fanfare of trumpets!!
I give youse, "Barnard Castle Eye Test!" ;D
You're a bit late off the mark with that one ;D ;D https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=831399.msg6962004#msg6962004
-
As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness
Just where does it say that is acceptable in the Highway Code? I doubt very much if that would be accepted as an excuse if the person doing it had an accident and killed someone. You are either fit to drive or you aren’t. If you think you need to go on a test drive then you obviously aren’t sure you are fit to drive and shouldn’t do it! Not only are you putting your life and that of any passengers at risk, but you are also endangering other road users.
Also, I would like to know if Guy has done this since the lockdown was introduced?
-
Has anyone considered how he managed to drive about 600 miles and didn't fill up with petrol?
Regarding testing of eyesight, many years ago I collected my first pair of varifocals. I hadn't used glasses before and was very nervous of driving. The glasses were obviously OK for driving but I wasn't. I got my husband to drive me around some country lanes, housing estates and a dual carriageway so I could sit in the car and watch the road as a driver without actually driving. He also took my out at night for the same reason. I didn't drive until I was confident in my corrected vision.
Rishile
-
Has anyone considered how he managed to drive about 600 miles and didn't fill up with petrol?
Regarding testing of eyesight, many years ago I collected my first pair of varifocals. I hadn't used glasses before and was very nervous of driving. The glasses were obviously OK for driving but I wasn't. I got my husband to drive me around some country lanes, housing estates and a dual carriageway so I could sit in the car and watch the road as a driver without actually driving. He also took my out at night for the same reason. I didn't drive until I was confident in my corrected vision.
Rishile
You would have saved a lot of time if you'd just done the one trip to Barnard Castle. ;D
-
Has anyone considered how he managed to drive about 600 miles and didn't fill up with petrol?
Regarding testing of eyesight, many years ago I collected my first pair of varifocals. I hadn't used glasses before and was very nervous of driving. The glasses were obviously OK for driving but I wasn't. I got my husband to drive me around some country lanes, housing estates and a dual carriageway so I could sit in the car and watch the road as a driver without actually driving. He also took my out at night for the same reason. I didn't drive until I was confident in my corrected vision.
Rishile
You would have saved a lot of time if you'd just done the one trip to Barnard Castle. ;D
That would have been a 500 mile round trip for me. Even outside lockdown that's a long eyesight test. Or maybe not. ;D
Rishile
-
Another question for Gadget- what's the best site to see how the current infections are in the North East. I'm finding a certain North East newspapers reports a little frustrating.
This is the best official site for regional, and local info Candleflame:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#category=ltlas&map=rate&area=e06000057
If you scroll down to the listing and map you can select Region, Upper tier or Local authority.
Thanks Gadget I knew you would know .
-
Has anyone considered how he managed to drive about 600 miles and didn't fill up with petrol?
Regarding testing of eyesight, many years ago I collected my first pair of varifocals. I hadn't used glasses before and was very nervous of driving. The glasses were obviously OK for driving but I wasn't. I got my husband to drive me around some country lanes, housing estates and a dual carriageway so I could sit in the car and watch the road as a driver without actually driving. He also took my out at night for the same reason. I didn't drive until I was confident in my corrected vision.
Rishile
You would have saved a lot of time if you'd just done the one trip to Barnard Castle. ;D
Oooo goodie, I have new specs 🤓 does that mean I can nip 350 miles up the road to my daughter in Gloucestershire in order to test them out. I’m not showing any symptoms though, unless you count lock down fever ::)
-
As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness
Just where does it say that is acceptable in the Highway Code? I doubt very much if that would be accepted as an excuse if the person doing it had an accident and killed someone. You are either fit to drive or you aren’t. If you think you need to go on a test drive then you obviously aren’t sure you are fit to drive and shouldn’t do it! Not only are you putting your life and that of any passengers at risk, but you are also endangering other road users.
The highway code is not law it is guidance, but obviously if you are taking a test drive you drive cautiously. It is exactly the same as the police when they do high speed driving test drives on a regular basis to ensure their driving is up to standard.
As for your claim you are fit to drive or you are not that is simply not true, you can feel fit to drive before you get behind the wheel but, for example, as soon as the sun flashes through the trees as you drive you can realise that you could not drive like that for any length of time. Another example is as you are driving you could find that your concentration is not up to what is required to drive. You could think your observation is good but realise you have missed road signs etc. or you could quickly find your road positioning is not very good, all things easily tested on a test drive.
If you do not think that perhaps it might be a good idea to test yourself on the computer using one of the theory test apps to see just how good your driving is, the road test is an extension of this.
Cheers
Guy
-
"More or Less" (Wed.9 a.m., repeat Fri. 4.30 p.m.) 5 of 7 editions, Radio 4, included an interview with a behavioural scientist, recorded late last week, before DC furore. She said 3 things were key when authorities relied on widespread public compliance with restrictions. Trust and equal treatment were 2. I've forgotten the 3rd. Guy, did you record that programme? Then you can remind me what the 3rd thing was and I won't have to find it on BBC Sounds/ IPlayer. Anyway, all 3 key principles have been damaged by DC incident. That's what's important.
The partial relaxation in England 3 weeks ago was also regarded as unfair by some members of the public e.g. a cleaner, cook or nanny could be in a person's house but not the householder's parent or daughter/son.
Other Covid related items on the programme were testing and the number of people arriving in Britain Jan.-March this year.
Of course, some people may consider the "More or Less" programme biased against the government because it's on BBC. If so, when it comes to testing numbers, it's equally biased against the Scottish Govt. ;) Welsh & N.I. people might like to complain too because their govts. weren't mentioned (again).
Another behavioural scientist, a member of one of the groups advising the govt. was raging earlier in the week.
Listening to "The News Quiz" . DC was 1st question. A panellist pointed out the implied insult to Mrs DC's driving ability and her husband's obvious reluctance to let her behind the wheel of his car for the return drive to London. If DC had put that forward as explanation for the trip to Barnard Castle, his excuse might have appealed to some men. ;)
-
As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness
Just where does it say that is acceptable in the Highway Code? I doubt very much if that would be accepted as an excuse if the person doing it had an accident and killed someone. You are either fit to drive or you aren’t. If you think you need to go on a test drive then you obviously aren’t sure you are fit to drive and shouldn’t do it! Not only are you putting your life and that of any passengers at risk, but you are also endangering other road users.
The highway code is not law it is guidance,
The bit about eye sight isn't guidance. It is law.
Rishile
-
As for the trip to Barnard Castle I view it as a sensible thing to do before driving back down to London.
I have done something very similar after an illness
Just where does it say that is acceptable in the Highway Code? I doubt very much if that would be accepted as an excuse if the person doing it had an accident and killed someone. You are either fit to drive or you aren’t. If you think you need to go on a test drive then you obviously aren’t sure you are fit to drive and shouldn’t do it! Not only are you putting your life and that of any passengers at risk, but you are also endangering other road users.
The highway code is not law it is guidance,
The bit about eye sight isn't guidance. It is law.
Rishile
Driving while medically unfit invalidates your insurance. Driving without insurance is most definitely a crime. Even if it wasn't I really cannot understand how anyone could argue that it was responsible.
-
The highway code is not law it is guidance,
"Certain rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and are identified by the words 'must' or 'must not'. ... Although failure to comply with the other rules would not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, the Highway Code may be used in court under the Road Traffic Act to establish liability.
-
Having sat as a JP for many years, if anyone had appeared before my bench using Guy's ideas of what is legal and what is not, we would have given him very short shrift. The laws about fitness to drive are unequivocal, and not open to interpretation. If your ability to drive is affected by feeling unwell, or if you suspect your eyesight does not meet the legal requirements, you must not drive. If you disobey you are not only committing an offence, but you are also invalidating your insurance. The chances are, if you did not receive immediate disqualification (which for these charges is discretionary) you would certainly become a 'totter' through penalty points, and would lose your licence. And if that doesn't worry you, the fact that your insurance premiums thereafter would be astronomical might give you pause for thought. Hopefully being made to take part in a National Driver Offender Retraining course would afford you the opportunity to read through the Highway Code and the various Road Traffic Acts and amend your ideas.
There's also another charge of lack of consideration for other road users which most likely would be added to the list. And if you had an accident and killed someone, you would also be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, if you admitted that you were unwell or thought your eyesight impaired. But you wouldn't admit to that, would you? You would keep quiet about the fact that you were not fit to be on the road. I find it very worrying that people are happy to put the lives of others at risk. I suppose it doesn't matter as long as any potential victims are strangers.
-
This really is becoming one long yawn. Just how many circles can you all go around before you meet yourselves coming back or disappear somewhere you wouldn't wish to go?.
Oh, and not let's forget, the Cummings' 4 year old is, apparently, autistic. Just saying - it doesn't seem to have had a mention here, or anywhere else for that matter.
:)
Anyway, here's something else for you to ponder on. Today First Minister Drakeford announced our new "freedom" in Wales, which I won't go into in detail because I think most of you are in England or Scotland. Now then, this advice included that we should stay "local" which, according to Drakeford, is around five miles. As I live less than five miles from my nearest border crossing into England, do you think I could drive across the border and then, because I would be in England, drive as far as I wished?. I don't want to go that far but just to our son's, some 15 mins into England.
Assume "social distancing" etc. would be observed.
By the way, I walked several miles further than five today but not into England. I stayed reasonably "local".
Cymru Am Byth.
:)
Any replies which mention Cummings, or may be attributed to him in any way, shape or form, are not valid!.
:)
-
Oh, and not let's forget, the Cummings' 4 year is, apparently, autistic. Just saying - it doesn't seem to have had a mention here, or anywhere else for that matter.
Probably because that claim was withdrawn and is fake news.
-
This really is becoming one long yawn. Just how many circles can you all go around before you meet yourselves coming back or disappear somewhere you wouldn't wish to go?.
Oh, and not let's forget, the Cummings' 4 year old is, apparently, autistic. Just saying - it doesn't seem to have had a mention here, or anywhere else for that matter.
:)
Anyway, here's something else for you to ponder on. Today First Minister Drakeford announced our new "freedom" in Wales, which I won't go into in detail because I think most of you are in England or Scotland. Now then, this advice included that we should stay "local" which, according to Drakeford, is around five miles. As I live less than five miles from my nearest border crossing into England, do you think I could drive across the border and then, because I would be in England, drive as far as I wished?. I don't want to go that far but just to our son's, some 15 mins into England.
Assume "social distancing" etc. would be observed.
By the way, I walked several miles further than five today but not into England. I stayed reasonably "local".
Cymru Am Byth.
:)
Any replies which mention Cummings, or may be attributed to him in any way, shape or form, are not valid!.
:)
Tying myslef in knots? Really? My reasons for being angry have stayed the same throughout this discussion despite repeated attempts to tie me in knots, accuse me of not understanding and patronising me.
-
On a slightly different tack, I see in news from the other side of the Atlantic that the President has said that he is ending the US relationship with WHO.
-
"This really is becoming one long yawn. Just how many circles can you all go around before you meet yourselves coming back or disappear somewhere you wouldn't wish to go?. "
Llwyd - please don'e worry yourself by reading this thread if it's making you go round and round.
Suggesting that the concerned people might vanish up their own a...ses (you were saying that, no? if I misinterpret you, please do correct me) is an insult which is not called for.
"Oh, and not let's forget, the Cummings' 4 year old is, apparently, autistic. Just saying - it doesn't seem to have had a mention here, or anywhere else for that matter."
This is a totally unsubstantiated rumour, posted by one person on Facebook, and has not in any way been verified.
As I say.
Those who remain completely unmoved by a powerful player advising our Government in the crisis of a pandemic choosing not only to break the advice he helped create, but not feeling he owed any apology - indeed lying on a blog to make himself sound better - please do feel free to let the rest of us worry on your behalf.
A million people or thereabouts have signed a petition, and MPs have received c 180 corrected 270+ with many MPs receiving several hundred or moreemails on the subject each, so it's evidently not of any interest to many.
The great pleasure of a website like RC is that we can exchange views, sometimes forcefully, but with respect.
Telling me that my concern will let me circle up my bottom doesn't count as respect to me.
-
The "More or Less" programme I mentioned in my reply 155 had an interview with a statistician who had been charting deaths, based on the date the person died, not when the death was reported or registered.
His findings :
the death rate in the UK as a whole has been decreasing steadily since the peak in early April;
it is decreasing at a slower rate than it increased during March and early April.
-
The "More or Less" programme I mentioned in my reply 155 had an interview with a statistician who had been charting deaths, based on the date the person died, not when the death was reported or registered.
His findings :
the death rate in the UK as a whole has been decreasing steadily since the peak in early April;
it is decreasing at a slower rate than it increased during March and early April.
That's the pattern I've been seeing but I just like maths rather than being a professional statistician. My concern is the current level of circulating virus is still significantly higher than when we entered lockdown making it a high risk that we could so easily return to exponential growth of cases if we go too fast with easing lockdown.
-
Could we summarise the DC and BoJo situation with this quote-
"I know you believe that you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure that you realise that what you heard is not what I meant"
Robert McCloskey
-
My concern is the current level of circulating virus is still significantly higher than when we entered lockdown making it a high risk that we could so easily return to exponential growth of cases if we go too fast with easing lockdown.
A scientist, a member of an advisory body expressed his disquiet today.
Situation isn't the same in all regions of England.
I think Scottish government is right to take the cautious approach.
radstockjeff thanks for making it clear ;)
-
Anent tracking & tracing, interesting stuff from Bella!
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2020/05/29/track-and-trace-stay-elite/
Skoosh.
-
Could we summarise the DC and BoJo situation with this quote-
"I know you believe that you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure that you realise that what you heard is not what I meant"
Robert McCloskey
and another American said : ‘There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.’ February 2002, Donald Rumsfeld, the then US Secretary of State for Defence.
and an Australian pollie said : ‘In the race of life, always back self-interest — at least you know it's trying’ Paul Keating former PM quoting his mentor, Jack Lang a former Premier of NSW, who was sacked by the Governor of NSW in 1932.
May I suggest that NSW people make good sense.
JM
-
Anent tracking & tracing, interesting stuff from Bella!
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2020/05/29/track-and-trace-stay-elite/
Skoosh.
Yet again very interesting! Thanks!
-
Anent tracking & tracing, interesting stuff from Bella!
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2020/05/29/track-and-trace-stay-elite/
Skoosh.
I've been doing a little bit of investigative work on the subject this week. Not at all promising for T&T so far :-X
-
Anent tracking & tracing, interesting stuff from Bella!
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2020/05/29/track-and-trace-stay-elite/
Skoosh.
I've been doing a little bit of investigative work on the subject this week. Not at all promising for T&T so far :-X
Not at all, I have serious doubts about the efficiency of the implementation especially the lead time from starting with symptoms to getting a result as if that's too long it makes it pointless. It needs to become significantly more efficient or the whole system falls down.
-
.
-
As I've said elsewhere, the main issue with this so-called track and trace is the opportunities it gives the scam merchants. I for one will deal with any calls in the usual way which usually involves more than just putting the 'phone down!
Would you give somebody who 'phones you up, out of the blue, your email address or any other personal information? Not b!@@6y likely!
-
As I've said elsewhere, the main issue with this so-called track and trace is the opportunities it gives the scam merchants. I for one will deal with any calls in the usual way which usually involves more than just putting the 'phone down!
Would you give somebody who 'phones you up, out of the blue, your email address or any other personal information? Not b!@@6y likely!
I agree absolutely. I was horrified to read that someone could phone us up and give us instructions to isolate. Why would anyone believe that they are genuine? I'm sure we've all had scammers who have sounded very plausible when they phone. We are told we will be able to set up a security number. Is that supposed to reassure us? And of course many of us have call-blockers on the phone because of nuisance calls. This is yet another half-baked idea from the govt that just is never going to work.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/boris-johnsons-test-and-tracing-system-britain-lockdown
Why do we have to announce this as 'world-beating'?
Why can't we just have a system which we are building to be as competent as possible?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/boris-johnsons-test-and-tracing-system-britain-lockdown
Why do we have to announce this as 'world-beating'?
Why can't we just have a system which we are building to be as competent as possible?
Why am I not surprised?
-
Thank goodness that some of the Sage scientists are going public. A great pity that Witty and Valance haven't. Are they waiting for gongs and peerages?
-
With Serco who were fined £19m last year for fraud and false accounting running track and trace and Dido Harding, Oxford PPE chum of David Cameron, failed CEO of Talk Talk and board director of the Jockey club and Cheltenham racecourse at the helm, I'm sure it will be world beating.
A world beating muck up!
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/boris-johnsons-test-and-tracing-system-britain-lockdown
Why do we have to announce this as 'world-beating'?
Why can't we just have a system which we are building to be as competent as possible?
OK, I withdraw what I said in my last post, the whole thing appears to be a scam!
-
My niece works for the local sexual health team and she is currently involved in setting up a covid tracing system for the county. I don't think this is part of the national system but in addition. One positive is that team she works with will have lots of experience in contact tracing, so that gives me a glimmer hope, especially if these teams are involved country wide and in addition to the "world beating" system!
-
If people can't be bothered to observe social distancing then they are hardly likely to self-isolate for 14 days. I don't use my local shop as people are just going in and out as normal, sometimes in groups with pushchairs, no face coverings, no distancing whatsoever. (It's also a Post Office.) Some neighbours are already having several visitors.
On the pavement people walk close by even if I go onto the kerb, it's as though lockdown has ended already.
rayard.
-
Anent tracking & tracing, interesting stuff from Bella!
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2020/05/29/track-and-trace-stay-elite/
Skoosh.
Will this be used in Scotland ?
-
From the reports of numbers of fines handed out, I don't think it ever started in some people's minds And they are only the ones caught by the police and who they failed to encourage, cajole etc to disperse and go home.
Greece will be allowing tourists in from mid June - but only from countries which have infection rates under control - it does not include UK.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/boris-johnsons-test-and-tracing-system-britain-lockdown
Why do we have to announce this as 'world-beating'?
Why can't we just have a system which we are building to be as competent as possible?
I didn't realise it was a competition. Sort of IT World Cup. I know many people are missing real sport but ...
I will also be satisfied with competent. Superlatives have taken over. Superlativitis is a contagion which has infected many organisations including local authorities.
-
My niece works for the local sexual health team and she is currently involved in setting up a covid tracing system for the county. I don't think this is part of the national system but in addition. One positive is that team she works with will have lots of experience in contact tracing, so that gives me a glimmer hope, especially if these teams are involved country wide and in addition to the "world beating" system!
Perhaps she's one of the thousands of experts to whom the PM referred.
-
My niece works for the local sexual health team and she is currently involved in setting up a covid tracing system for the county. I don't think this is part of the national system but in addition. One positive is that team she works with will have lots of experience in contact tracing, so that gives me a glimmer hope, especially if these teams are involved country wide and in addition to the "world beating" system!
Perhaps she's one of the thousands of experts to whom the PM referred.
She'll definitely have more expertise than him. She's not one of the 24000 new recruits and has more than 10 years experience in contact tracing.
-
I've more or less given up listening to the Govt's press updates but today I had to be in.
I found it interesting that Prof Van-Tam was pretty firm in his reply when asked whether those in power should follow the rules. The specific topic was about DC ~
Should people in authority give a lead and obey the rules above all?
I’m quite happy to answer.
In my opinion the rules are clear & they have always been clear.
In my opinion they are there for the benefit of all & in my opinion they apply to all
He sounded very forceful in his reply, unlike previous colleagues.
He was also very firm on the risks of loosening the lockdown rules. I sensed that he didn't approve.
Gadget
-
My niece works for the local sexual health team and she is currently involved in setting up a covid tracing system for the county. I don't think this is part of the national system but in addition. One positive is that team she works with will have lots of experience in contact tracing, so that gives me a glimmer hope, especially if these teams are involved country wide and in addition to the "world beating" system!
The NHS has had a contact tracing system for many years that is used for various outbreaks of communicable over the years. These include tuberculosis, whooping cough, meningococcal, aids, etc.
The separate NHS regions though using slightly different practices are used to working together in this contact tracing and this local based system will be working in conjunction with the new contact tracers.
Cheers
Guy
-
I've more or less given up listening to the Govt's press updates but today I had to be in.
I found it interesting that Prof Van-Tam was pretty firm in his reply when asked whether those in power should follow the rules. The specific topic was about DC ~
Should people in authority give a lead and obey the rules above all?
I’m quite happy to answer.
In my opinion the rules are clear & they have always been clear.
In my opinion they are there for the benefit of all & in my opinion they apply to all
He sounded very forceful in his reply, unlike previous colleagues.
He was also very firm on the risks of loosening the lockdown rules. I sensed that he didn't approve.
Gadget
Agreed, he was very firm and forceful, got his point of view across.
Regards Margaret
-
I've more or less given up listening to the Govt's press updates but today I had to be in.
I found it interesting that Prof Van-Tam was pretty firm in his reply when asked whether those in power should follow the rules. The specific topic was about DC ~
Should people in authority give a lead and obey the rules above all?
I’m quite happy to answer.
In my opinion the rules are clear & they have always been clear.
In my opinion they are there for the benefit of all & in my opinion they apply to all
He sounded very forceful in his reply, unlike previous colleagues.
He was also very firm on the risks of loosening the lockdown rules. I sensed that he didn't approve.
Gadget
Wonder if that's the last time he'll be invited to the daily briefing?
-
I gather that there's an interesting poll out tonight ( Opinium for Observer).
-
Wonder if that's the last time he'll be invited to the daily briefing?
I wondered that as well.
-
I too was delighted to hear Professor Van-Tam say that lockdown rules apply to everybody. Obvious really. No point in having lockdown rules which allow the entitled and/or stupid to travel all over the place spreading the virus. Interesting that the incidence of the disease in Durham was low when the Cummings family arrived, but thereafter the area became - and remains - one of the high-scorers. A fine example of why lockdown should apply to everyone, and why we who have been obeying the rules (and many suffering great hardships to do so) feel most aggrieved at the flippancy with which some still regard it. I'm not 'moving on' because moving on implies that I should forget. 60.000 dead people, each with grieving families and friends, say we must not move on.
-
And what's more ... thought you might like this bit of cleverness from the Telegraph crossword compiler.
-
Greensleeves 196 ;D ;D ;D Hahaha!
-
I found it interesting that Prof Van-Tam was pretty firm in his reply when asked whether those in power should follow the rules. The specific topic was about DC ~
Should people in authority give a lead and obey the rules above all?
I’m quite happy to answer.
In my opinion the rules are clear & they have always been clear.
In my opinion they are there for the benefit of all & in my opinion they apply to all
He sounded very forceful in his reply, unlike previous colleagues.
PM prevented either expert from answering the other day. He said it was a political question.
The minister at today's briefing was Culture & Sport, nobody I've heard of, maybe not sufficiently forceful or authoritative to stop the prof answering. They seem to wheel out 3rd Division ministers on Saturday. Patel does an occasional Saturday appearance.
Theresa May's letter to her constituents - Cummings actions were not in the spirit of the guidelines.
-
I too was delighted to hear Professor Van-Tam say that lockdown rules apply to everybody. Obvious really. No point in having lockdown rules which allow the entitled and/or stupid to travel all over the place spreading the virus. Interesting that the incidence of the disease in Durham was low when the Cummings family arrived, but thereafter the area became - and remains - one of the high-scorers. A fine example of why lockdown should apply to everyone, and why we who have been obeying the rules (and many suffering great hardships to do so) feel most aggrieved at the flippancy with which some still regard it. I'm not 'moving on' because moving on implies that I should forget. 60.000 dead people, each with grieving families and friends, say we must not move on.
I also agree with Professor Van-Tam the lockdown rules apply to everyone, however the trip up to Durham was legal and allowed by the rules, this has been confirmed by the Durham Police statement
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pj2/
and even Suella Braverman, the Attorney General.
If anyone can point me to any legislation the Dominc Cummings broke by going up to Durham I would change my view but repeatedly claiming he did without saying what law he broke is just political point scoring.
For instance the main Act is
The Coronavirus Act 2020
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7
Then there are various Statutory instruments such as
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made
There is also Guidance which is good advice but it must be remembered that this advice is not legally enforcable unless backed by legislation.
Examples
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pj0/
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01pj1/
This is like the Highway Code, sound advice but only part of which is backed by legislation, I believe that this is why some are confused because the do not understand the difference, many people think the guidance in the Highway Code is law.
There are other examples and downloads of various types available including the National Police Chiefs Council guidance 'What constitutes a reasonable excuse' and other similar guidance they have published as PDF texts.
If you want to educate yourself and have an informed debate read through such documents but if you simply want to score political points then obviously they will hold no interest to you.
Cheers
Guy
-
I am fortunate in living in a place where the advice has been backed up by legislation.
So far, 26 people have been imprisoned for breaking lockdown ;D
Just so glad I no longer live in the UK :D
-
Guy, there is a difference between law and guidance, most of us are aware of this, and you do not have to insult your fellow Rootschatters.
There is also spirit of the law, unenforceable. Drive to Durham.
There is also flatant breach of the law, which is enforceable. Approx 60 mile round trip to test one's eyesight (coincidentally to a beauty spot on his wife's birthday).
Potentially invalid insurance if it had not been up to scratch, endangering the lives of other road users and his wife and child.
The police didn't enforce it as the policy was, and still is, to a certain extent, engagement and encourage to return etc etc
Please stop repeatedly insulting Rootschatters intelligence.
If you have to insult Rootschatters with a different opinion to yourself, perhaps you could drop the 'Cheers'?
Margaret
-
Guy, please practice what you preach, in reply#154 of this thread you stated that the Highway Code is not law it is guidance.
Gaie
-
Guy, I am not remotely confused, I understand the legislation perfectly, same with the Highway Code. I can assure you that I am not a member of any political party and am not trying to make a political point I just believe he has acted in the wrong and his attempt in defending it has compounded that. Having seen the suffering Covid can cause it has made me especially angry. As you appear to be confused as to what my standpoint is (despite me explaining myself more than once) please let me clarify.
1. I believe that is possible to obey the law and still be in the wrong.
2. I am perfectly able to understand that being in the wrong does not necessarily mean that you will be charged with an offence but not being charged with an offence is not sufficient proof in itself that you as an individual have acted with integrity and I think this applies in this situation.
3. I believe you can act in accordance with the letter of the law whilst breaking the spirit of the law. I believe that this applies in this case as the aim of the regulations and guidelines was to discourage people from travelling large distances and thereby seeding further outbreaks.
4. I believe that he acted contrary to the guidelines, specifically where it states that when a member of your household has symptoms you must isolate for 14 days in your main residence. He openly admitted to returning to work the afternoon of the day his wife developed symptoms and then the trip to Durham.
5. I believe that there were multiple options open to him, including options involving his family in Durham that did not necessitate driving while unwell.
6. In terms of the drive to Barnard Castle. Although I understand that there is not specific offence of driving while visually impaired that does not make the action legal. If you are unable to notice potential hazards in the road you are driving without due care and attention. The fact that there was no accident is luck, not judgement. Furthermore driving while medically unfit invalidates your insurance. Driving without insurance is an offence. My colleagues and I have on numerous occasions clarified this with legal experts, the police and the DVLA when we have had to advise someone not to drive. And No, I'm not claiming that we legally enforce this I said advise not prevent.
7. In relation to point 6 above if we ignore the legal standpoint for a second I cannot consider driving while unfit to be a responsible action and it is certainly not something you should be stating publicly that you have no regrets over doing.
8. I consider the political party to which he is associated to be irrelevant. His position within the Government is only relevant in as much as I believe that people in power and in powerful positions have a moral obligation to lead by example and I consider his actions to have been a bad example as if everyone did the same it would be quite literally carnage.
9. In addition to point 8 above I consider all the politicians and senior scientists who have acted in the wrong. Catherine Calderwood was wrong and I was angry with her, the reason I am now less angry with her is that she stood up and said acted wrongly and resigned and she wasn't part of a symptomatic household at the time. Same with Steven Kinnock I am annoyed with him too but again he aplogised and to the best of our knowledge was from an asymptomatic household. Same with the SAGE scientist and the Labour front bencher today. In summary how his actions have been dealt with has compounded my anger.
-
It like a Lynch Mob on here. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I agree...... it is not necessary to belittle and sneer at people who are justifiably angry at effectively having 2 fingers stuck up to them
.Guy will understand, I have no doubt, the meaning of the phrase "reductio ad hominem" "if you cant play the ball play the man" It is a logical fallacy.Look up "fallacy"
Perhaps Guy might like to also look up the meaning of the word "political".. to save him the trouble,it means "of or concerning the state , government or political affairs generally". (OED)
Therefore all points expressed in this discussion are "political" but not "party political". since they relate to the actions of a senior official who seems to think that rules don't apply to him , nor do the rules of common decency, ie at the very least apologise. when you are so blatantly obviously in the wrong .
-
It like a Lynch Mob on here. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Are you surprised?
-
An article by Peter Bone
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/31/dominic-cummings-should-resign-peter-bone-conservative-mp
Let me first lay to rest some of the more ridiculous accusations that have been laid at the door of those of us who have called for Dominic Cummings to resign. These include: that this is a Remainer conspiracy to help reverse Brexit, that it is a leftwing campaign to destabilise the government, or that it is a coded attack on Boris Johnson.
-
Instead of voicing your anger at each other why not channel it towards your MP.
It is them that have issued guidelines which are unclear.
It is them that failed to act in time to stop the virus from entering the UK.
It is them that have created elements of society who just do not give a damn about anyone other than themselves.
Just take a look at the images of the Dorset coast yesterday at the Durdle Durr to be astonished at the stupidity of the crowds there.
-
Whatever happened to good old fashioned journalism when every story was checked... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I've been looking at the government stats site which gadget kindly supplied. I'm wondering if I'm going wrong somewhere. I know it's done on governing structures, but it's very hard to tell exactly what's going on. So my interest is in the North East of England, but the lower authority splits it into such difficult ways. So eg You can see Northumberland but only as a county. You can see Newcastle and Gateshead as separate entries and their figures look way better but it's not comparing like with like. Moving further south, County Durham is just that like Northumberland, one county figure, but Darlington as a sep authority, you can see their figures, as you can with Hartlepool and Middlesborough.
If I wanted to know the risk areas in say Northumberland and County Durham, I'd be none the wiser as to where any hot spots were?
Is there anywhere where the figures are split differently , a bit like you can search for crime rates and crime incidents by postcode?
-
It's a bit complex but 'broadly' the less populous areas are not split down to anything lower than the counties (or the remains of the counties when you take the populous areas away).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_England
-
Thinking about this more, it might just be possible to go down to top level post codes or EDs (enumeration districts) if addresses were included as part of the coding scheme.
I'm sure this is probably something that they might do if they are going to use area lockdowns in the future.
I've only used this data post hoc when I did analyses of census data in the 1991 and 2001 censuses. I was was sent anonymised data for each ED in Eng and Wales and was then able to analyse and subsequently group the EDs according to different features.
-
Whatever happened to good old fashioned journalism when every story was checked...
It's the Mail on Sunday! What did you expect?
Regards
Chas
-
Well they would'nt print that in the Guardian would they Chas...I'll stick to the Dandy and Beano,much more plausable...The Sun aint a bad comic either for laughs. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
Derek, I've always regarded you as a good friend and still do. That M on S article is really not an argument that can be used to defend DC. Two wrongs don't make a right and DC has admitted that he did the same and more.
-
Anyone seen the scenes from Durdle Door in Dorset yesterday? Social Distancing, my ar*e!
Every picture tells a story.
So what's the answer to this then Boris?
-
Derek, I've always regarded you as a good friend and still do. That M on S article is really not an argument that can be used to defend DC. Two wrongs don't make a right and DC has admitted that he did the same and more.
I completely agree. Two wrongs don't make a right is something I regularly tell my girls.
I also think breaking down the data into smaller areas would be beneficial if they want to narrow down hotspots and implement localised shutdowns should they be necessary.
I saw the pictures of many beaches and I dispair, the past 10 weeks have all been for nothing, all that work and it's undone in one weekend.
-
Well Gadget,all I can say is that if every one took the same stance on the other MPs who have supposedly broke the rules,ie,attending a funeral with 100 or so mourners,the MP who travelled to Wales to see his sick relaltive,etc etc etc.....100s if not thousands of complaints and partys,barbecues,etc etc,all supoosedly broke the rules and reported to the authorities and nothing done,I might just have a bit of sympathy,but its just turned into a witchhunt against one or more people.
-
I think the difference between other MPs doing it and Dominic Cummings, is that he was involved in making the rules in the first place, he was amongst the people advising what they should be. The other MPs should have set an example, but no doubt many of them were as confused as the general public as to what we could or couldn't do.
-
Something very weird is happening. I thought we were still at level 4 on the govt's 5 test level chart or road map.
However, the features, shown on the top row, don't seem to have been met for Level 1 relaxations.
-
Guy, please practice what you preach, in reply#154 of this thread you stated that the Highway Code is not law it is guidance.
Gaie
That is correct the Highway code is not law it is guidance, there are certain sections in the Highway Code that are stating what the legislation says but it is the legislation that gives them the weight of law.
There are also numerous sections that cannot be enforced by law as there is no legislation to uphold the words written.
I apologise if I confused you.
Cheers
Guy
-
Derek - your favourite paper announces that in a reputable 81% of the people asked believe that DC did break the rulesL
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8373959/Tory-poll-lead-crashes-four-points-amid-Dominic-Cummings-row.html
-
Guy, please practice what you preach, in reply#154 of this thread you stated that the Highway Code is not law it is guidance.
Gaie
That is correct the Highway code is not law it is guidance, there are certain sections in the Highway Code that are stating what the legislation says but it is the legislation that gives them the weight of law.
There are also numerous sections that cannot be enforced by law as there is no legislation to uphold the words written.
I apologise if I confused you.
Cheers
Guy
I hope you read Greensleeve's early reply to that as a JP.
-
Guy, please practice what you preach, in reply#154 of this thread you stated that the Highway Code is not law it is guidance.
Gaie
That is correct the Highway code is not law it is guidance, there are certain sections in the Highway Code that are stating what the legislation says but it is the legislation that gives them the weight of law.
There are also numerous sections that cannot be enforced by law as there is no legislation to uphold the words written.
I apologise if I confused you.
Cheers
Guy
No confusion at all on my part just a feeling allowing for benefit of the doubt that you had missed my statement re it being possible to do something within the letter of the law and still be in the wrong. Not to mention the explanations given by others regarding how other named offences would potentially apply.
-
Anyone seen the scenes from Durdle Door in Dorset yesterday? Social Distancing, my ar*e!
Every picture tells a story.
So what's the answer to this then Boris?
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18480360.crowds-flock-durdle-door-bank-holiday/?ref=nuo
It only made headlines because some idiots got injured. Local residents have been attempting to help out with crowd control over the last several days. The police have no powers to enforce social distancing apparently, only can issue fines if gatherings exceed the maximum.
The air ambulance took two of the morons injured jumping off the arch to the same hospital where a friend of ours was admitted in early April with Covid and has only recently come off a ventilator.
And according to Dorset Echo, they're flocking back to the county today
https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/18486648.congestion-reported-a31-crowds-flock-dorset-beaches/
-
This really is becoming one long yawn. Just how many circles can you all go around before you meet yourselves coming back or disappear somewhere you wouldn't wish to go?.
Oh, and not let's forget, the Cummings' 4 year old is, apparently, autistic. Just saying - it doesn't seem to have had a mention here, or anywhere else for that matter.
:)
Anyway, here's something else for you to ponder on. Today First Minister Drakeford announced our new "freedom" in Wales, which I won't go into in detail because I think most of you are in England or Scotland. Now then, this advice included that we should stay "local" which, according to Drakeford, is around five miles. As I live less than five miles from my nearest border crossing into England, do you think I could drive across the border and then, because I would be in England, drive as far as I wished?. I don't want to go that far but just to our son's, some 15 mins into England.
Assume "social distancing" etc. would be observed.
By the way, I walked several miles further than five today but not into England. I stayed reasonably "local".
Cymru Am Byth.
:)
Any replies which mention Cummings, or may be attributed to him in any way, shape or form, are not valid!.
:)
Tying myslef in knots? Really? My reasons for being angry have stayed the same throughout this discussion despite repeated attempts to tie me in knots, accuse me of not understanding and patronising me.
I would appreciate being shown which of my posts does any or all of these things to you.
:)
-
I do wonder if the imminent relaxation of lockdown in England is in effect an admission by the government that they have lost control.
Clearly some people have not been following lockdown rules, right from the start, and breaches seem to have become more frequent. The Cummings affair is likely to have exacerbated this.
At this point, one option might have been to double down on the restrictions, or at least prolong them, but as there aren't enough resources to enforce them (and possibly little political will to do so) this would probably result in even more widespread disobedience, and the government being even less respected. So instead, it occurs to me that the plan might be to give the public what they appear to want, in the expectation that when a second wave hits they'll be pleading for lockdown again.
(Or it might just be that they can't afford to have the economy shut down any longer.)
-
Guy, I don't feel there is any need for you to apologise to me :) . You have not confused me.
Gaie
-
"This really is becoming one long yawn. Just how many circles can you all go around before you meet yourselves coming back or disappear somewhere you wouldn't wish to go?. "
Llwyd - please don'e worry yourself by reading this thread if it's making you go round and round.
Suggesting that the concerned people might vanish up their own a...ses (you were saying that, no? if I misinterpret you, please do correct me) is an insult which is not called for.
"Oh, and not let's forget, the Cummings' 4 year old is, apparently, autistic. Just saying - it doesn't seem to have had a mention here, or anywhere else for that matter."
This is a totally unsubstantiated rumour, posted by one person on Facebook, and has not in any way been verified.
As I say.
Those who remain completely unmoved by a powerful player advising our Government in the crisis of a pandemic choosing not only to break the advice he helped create, but not feeling he owed any apology - indeed lying on a blog to make himself sound better - please do feel free to let the rest of us worry on your behalf.
A million people or thereabouts have signed a petition, and MPs have received c 180 corrected 270+ with many MPs receiving several hundred or moreemails on the subject each, so it's evidently not of any interest to many.
The great pleasure of a website like RC is that we can exchange views, sometimes forcefully, but with respect.
Telling me that my concern will let me circle up my bottom doesn't count as respect to me.
Nope, I'm not the one going around in circles, but lots of others are. As for the last remark, what can I say?. Your interpretation.
As for the matter of the Cummings' child being autistic, I stand corrected and I am grateful to you for clearing that matter up.
:)
-
Arthurk your reply #227 seems to tally with Andrew Rawnsley, when he writes:
The government has yet to face what could be the most deadly consequence of this episode: what it means for control of the epidemic. How easy will ministers find it to persuade the public to “do the right thing” when these same ministers have spent the past week defending Mr Cummings for doing the wrong thing? The government is moving deeper into the perilous phase of releasing lockdown measures when it cannot be entirely sure that it truly has the disease suppressed and before a test-and-trace regime has been adequately established.
Voicing the anxieties of the scientific advisers, Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief among them, has warned that “we still have a significant burden of infection” and the UK remains in a “fragile state”. Despite that serious caution, Mr Johnson is rapidly moving towards a substantial dismantling of restrictions. He now does so under a dark cloud of suspicion that his decision-making is no long being driven by the best scientific advice but by a desire to get his rule-breaking adviser out of the headlines. Should there be a reignition of the epidemic, should we face the much-dreaded second wave, the government will find it much harder to convince the country that it acted in good faith and did all in its power to ensure maximum public compliance. This will be even more the case if people break the rules with the excuse that “I’m just following my instincts” or “I’m only doing a Cummings”.
Boris Johnson was persuaded that it would look weak to give up his senior aide. The main source of that advice was, no doubt, Mr Cummings himself. Or, it occurs to me, the prime minister may be paralysed by the terror that a sacked Cummings would vengefully spill many rancid secrets. Whichever is the case, it looks both pathetic and dangerous to cling to one unelected adviser at such a severe cost to the government’s authority, the cabinet’s credibility, control of the epidemic, the national interest and even people’s lives. That will not be readily forgotten.
-
I didn't crib - honest! (I've heard of Andrew Rawnsley, but I couldn't tell you who he writes for, or where or when that article appeared.)
-
I didn't say you did, I was saying that you were both saying similar things and that I concurred :)
Answer - today in The Observer-Guardian. He's been around a long time. I recall him on BBC (?) many years ago as a young lad ;D
Added - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Rawnsley
-
I do wonder if the imminent relaxation of lockdown in England is in effect an admission by the government that they have lost control.
Clearly some people have not been following lockdown rules, right from the start, and breaches seem to have become more frequent. The Cummings affair is likely to have exacerbated this.
At this point, one option might have been to double down on the restrictions, or at least prolong them, but as there aren't enough resources to enforce them (and possibly little political will to do so) this would probably result in even more widespread disobedience, and the government being even less respected. So instead, it occurs to me that the plan might be to give the public what they appear to want, in the expectation that when a second wave hits they'll be pleading for lockdown again.
(Or it might just be that they can't afford to have the economy shut down any longer.)
The economy would have a lot to do with it.
There is pressure now from the hospitality industry to reduce the 2 metre rule to 1 metre.
The number of new infections per day as measured by people who have had a positive test has hardly moved from around 2000 for the last 10 days or so. The Government scientific advisers say it is nearer 8000 per day. As we have been in supposed lockdown for 10 weeks, how and where and from whom are all these people catching it?
-
I read some weeks ago that in these surveys where 80% of people claim to have been following the rules (in last night's update I think it was 98% :o ), actually when the survey is answered anonymously this number dropped to about 44%.
Last night I thought if 98% have been keeping 2m away from others, how are we still getting thousands of new cases per day???
Also - deputy lady mayor of Liverpool (Lab - but that makes no difference) they had 12 people in her garden in a celebration for her birthday organised by her daughter (she says she was looking through a window but at the time NO ONE was supposed to be in someone else's garden)
She has resigned.
Pat
-
Oh, no, ??? will Captain Tom have to return his gold Blue Peter badge? He had the world and her husband in his garden during lockdown ........
-
Thanks, Gadget (#232) - I didn't think you were accusing me, but maybe a ;) from me would have helped. Have an extra one now - ;) ;)
And thanks for filling me in on Andrew Rawnsley - I was a bit short on time earlier and would otherwise have looked him up myself.
-
Derek - your favourite paper announces that in a reputable 81% of the people asked believe that DC did break the rulesL
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8373959/Tory-poll-lead-crashes-four-points-amid-Dominic-Cummings-row.html
Aint bought a paper for years Gadget,they are a complete disgrace these days,it amazes me that people who think they are intelligent believe eveything whats printed and said by the media, its all about sensationlism these days,their obsession with the death rate is truly disgusting.I'll stick to me Beano.
-
Have you heard of the 4th Estate, Derek :)
PS - I was reporting the results of an opinion poll of real people, carried out by a reputable firm, reported in the Mail, most other papers, online, on tele, radio and twitter.
-
Aint bought a paper for years Gadget,they are a complete disgrace these days,it amazes me that people who think they are intelligent believe eveything whats printed and said by the media, its all about sensationlism these days,their obsession with the death rate is truly disgusting.I'll stick to me Beano.
Careful Derekwg, I’m on the list, that could be my death you are talking about :) :)
We have our kids to support us, hope you’ve made a will, they say,
As part of a general discussion, gadget posted a guide to levels1-5 a page or two ago, we definitely are not at the lowest risk yet.
However, the Scottish leader attaches equal importance to securing their economy and meeting with family and friends, and see a relaxation as beneficial.
In wales also I could be even further removed from purgatory, we could go out all day as a couple seemingly
I think I’ll nip over the border, it’s only two miles away, and take ny share of the risk.
Others may disagree.
Mike
Edit at 17 42: the bbc has made a liar out of me, no relaxation yet in Scotland
-
I think we can safely assume that Boris and pals have given up, partly due to the Cummings fiasco but mostly due to their complete and utter inability to get anything right.
By granting us our freedom (and not as gradually as they first suggested), they are only giving the nod to what is happening anyway, as people have lost any trust that they may have had. This way, Boris can turn round and blame the public for their own demise!!
I do feel sorry for the scientists who obviously wanted Track and Test (why do I keep wanting to call it Trick or Treat?) up and running before we were given a greater amount of freedom but I do get the distinct impression that, although the government has all along insisted that they were following the science, I fear that it may have started out like that but it has now become political and is all to do with the survival of Boris and his cabinet.
In a way, this may not be such a bad thing if it shows us one way or the other what happens when we abandon lockdown. Of course, I don't mean its a good thing that people will die but I'm afraid that's probably going to happen anyway if the virus spikes again.
I just don't think we can go on like this. Its been a complete fiasco almost from the start - people in other countries must be laughing at us. I'm ashamed of my own country! Can we not eliminate the politicians (any way you want!) and hand it over to the experts who have more than one brain cell???
-
I think we can safely assume that Boris and pals have given up, partly due to the Cummings fiasco but mostly due to their complete and utter inability to get anything right.
By granting us our freedom (and not as gradually as they first suggested), they are only giving the nod to what is happening anyway, as people have lost any trust that they may have had. This way, Boris can turn round and blame the public for their
In a way, this may not be such a bad thing if it shows us one way or the other what happens when we abandon lockdown. Of course, I don't mean its a good thing that people will die but I'm afraid that's probably going to happen anyway if the virus spikes again.
It’s actually a cunning plan, herd immunity by stealth
Mike
-
Whatever our indiviual thoughts are in these troubled and dangerous times is that if we do not start treating all nature,its people,its animals,all living things and the worlds climate with the utmost respect,this virus will not be the last of our problem..I firmly believe that nature is losing its patience with us and we must act now for the sake of this beautiful world and our children.
-
Have you heard of the 4th Estate, Derek :)
PS - I was reporting the results of an opinion poll of real people, carried out by a reputable firm, reported in the Mail, most other papers, online, on tele, radio and twitter.
Does it include the Dandy and Beano Gadget. 8)
-
Maybe Guy needs to read this before he continues confusing people. It could be awkward if you end up before the magistrates having as your defence "Well this guy on RC told me that the Highway Code was only advisory and he argued with such conviction (excuse the pun) that I believed him". ;D
-
Does it include the Dandy and Beano Gadget. 8)
Not sure Derek. maybe Chicks Own as well ;D ;D ;D
-
Maybe Guy needs to read this before he continues confusing people. It could be awkward if you end up before the magistrates having as your defence "Well this guy on RC told me that the Highway Code was only advisory and he argued with such conviction (excuse the pun) that I believed him". ;D
Perhaps you should actually read what is written
“Many of the rules are legal requirements.”
That means some not all are legal requirements, i.e. you cannot be prosecuted for those which are not legal requirements.
“Such rules are identified by the use of the words 'MUST/MUST NOT'. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.” That means we have included a short version of the law which makes it an offence if you do not do as the rule states.
“Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts … to establish liability” That means if you do not comply with the other rules if you do break a Traffic Act requirement the fact that you broke the guidance in the Highway Code may also be used to add weight to the action of carelessness or recklessness etc.
For Example Highway Code Rule 4
“4
Young children should not be out alone on the pavement or road (see Rule 7). When taking children out, keep between them and the traffic and hold their hands firmly. Strap very young children into push-chairs or use reins. When pushing a young child in a buggy, do not push the buggy into the road when checking to see if it is clear to cross, particularly from between parked vehicles.”
The last part of this concerning a buggy means if you push the buggy into the path of a road vehicle you as a pedestrian could be prosecuted for causing a danger to other road users, the child in the buggy and the vehicle occupants.
Cheers
Guy
-
Derek, I've always regarded you as a good friend and still do. That M on S article is really not an argument that can be used to defend DC. Two wrongs don't make a right and DC has admitted that he did the same and more.
The father in 1st article may have become confused after PM's address to the nation about initial relaxation of lockdown rules 3 weeks ago.
2nd article proves that you can't believe everything you read.
-
Maybe Guy needs to read this before he continues confusing people. It could be awkward if you end up before the magistrates having as your defence "Well this guy on RC told me that the Highway Code was only advisory and he argued with such conviction (excuse the pun) that I believed him". ;D
Perhaps you should actually read what is written
Guy
I presume as Greensleeves said she was a JP that she is well aware with what is written!
-
I am totally fed up with all this argument about the Highway code
Does anyone not care that our daily number of new cases is around 2000 and does not seem to be going down over the last 10 days or so, despite what all the politicians keep telling us. Agreed it is not at its peak but it seems to be levelling out. The scientists tell us the true figure is 8000 PER DAY. Why are so many people being infected now, day after day? Where are they catching it? If they were staying with their households the infection should have dwindled to almost nothing by now. Why can't the politicians accept lockdown is being flouted on a large scale, a lot of people couldn't care less about social distancing. The police in England are powerless to do anything unless groups are larger than the statutory maximum as evidenced by the fiasco on Durdle beach yesterday.
And yet Boris is giving everyone more freedom from tomorrow.
-
And still the morons do it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52867140
added
and the BBC can't even get the owner's name right! It's WELD not Weald, the family have owned it since the 1600s.
-
I am totally fed up with all this argument about the Highway code
You and me both!!
Does anyone not care that our daily number of new cases is around 2000 and does not seem to be going down over the last 10 days or so, despite what all the politicians keep telling us. Agreed it is not at its peak but it seems to be levelling out. The scientists tell us the true figure is 8000 PER DAY. Why are so many people being infected now, day after day? Where are they catching it? If they were staying with their households the infection should have dwindled to almost nothing by now. Why can't the politicians accept lockdown is being flouted on a large scale, a lot of people couldn't care less about social distancing. The police in England are powerless to do anything unless groups are larger than the statutory maximum as evidenced by the fiasco on Durdle beach yesterday.
And yet Boris is giving everyone more freedom from tomorrow.
Could it be because they're finally managing to do more tests so the numbers of people afflicted will go up? it would seem to me that a lot of these positive tests may well be of the kind showing no appreciable symptoms. Its concerned me for a while now that the numbers of deaths are staying pretty much the same from day to day. Okay, not nearly as bad as at the peak, but not going down so as you'd notice. I wonder if this is true of other countries like Spain and Italy or is it just us?
-
Of course people care about the number of new cases and I think most of us can see that we are being lied to by the Government, and that the true number of new cases, and probably deaths, is higher than we are told. The people who are flouting lockdown rule are obviously not those who are on RC or who use social media sites such as FB where people never admit to breaking them.
We have to remember that although we've been given more freedom, we don't have to take it. I for one, won't be rushing out to meet people. I may meet up with my sister and brother in law in their garden or in mine, but they, like me, have been staying at home, so I don't think we will be any threat to each other.
I just hope that Boris hasn't jumped the gun in order to please people. I realise that lock down has to be eased in order to support the economy, but there are some things, such as sport that could wait. I think the Government will find it much harder to introduce a lock time a second time if needs be!
-
this seems to be a good comparison website
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
-
I am totally fed up with all this argument about the Highway code
I agree with you absolutely. That is not what this thread is supposed to be about. I think if Guy wants to deflect attention from the REAL issues, then another thread on that specific matter would be a good idea. I won't contribute; I am tired of trying to stop him confusing people with his obfustications.
I agree with you absolutely that the real issue is the horrifying number of people who are testing positive on a daily basis, and the fact that the figure of 8,000 per day is truly terrifying. This really is not the time to relax restrictions. I am so glad I live in Wales where Senedd Cymru is taking a much more cautious approach. Mind you, they don't have to try to take the antics of Cummings off the front page, so they don't need to rush forward with indecent haste.
I noticed Charlotte Church tweeting today, begging people not to send their children to school tomorrow. I know if I had school-age children, I wouldn't be sending them. Now is not the time.
-
I'm glad I live in Scotland.
-
And yet Boris is giving everyone more freedom from tomorrow.
But it's not mandatory to partake is it. The scenes shown at various beaches and beauty spots beggar belief. I'm certain that if we were to go to one of the places we are allowed to travel to, given the "lockdown" rules in Wales, and it was crowded then we would move on to elsewhere or return home.
Yes, Johnson is giving more freedom but he has also asked for people to act sensibly, or is that too much to expect or ask?. Sadly, for some it appears so. However, we have no intention of joining the headlong rush.
As for the SAGE scientists not agreeing on relaxing the rules, is anyone able to tell me what this august body of experts has actually agreed unanimously on?. I don't think there has been overly much and I think that is likely to continue.
In fact there is worldwide disagreement between scientists over how to deal with the problem China has inflicted on the world.
:)
Re the above. Would that be Charlotte Church the world famous epidemiologist?.
Also, here in Wales the Senedd has seen fit to allow people from two households to meet up, either in a house garden or public place, whilst maintaining "social distancing". But then the number of people allowed to meet up is unlimited. I appreciate the number will be limited by the size of the households but nevertheless a couple of large households meeting up may prove problematic.
When Drakeford announced the new policy last week it was aired first on Radio Wales. I was struck by his phrase, which he didn't use later on television, "this is not an invitation this is a permission".
Well, thank you.
Furthermore, on Radio Wales, he was asked if people, when they meet up, could have a barbecue and a beer. In his best politician mode and his non-conformist disapproving "Parch" voice he told us that "people should not undertake any activities which may lead them to put their and others health at risk". Not a straight forward answer but one which was accompanied by the fear, which many Welsh non-conformists have, that someone, somewhere, may enjoy themselves. A straight forward yes or no would have been better.
That's the trouble with us Welsh, we seem to have a pessimistic outlook on the world. It must be the non-conformism, or have we always been like this?.
:)
-
Increase in positive cases may be due to increase in testing.
The medical officer at briefing yesterday said there's so much we (they) don't know. He urged caution. I recalled the saying "hasten slowly" "festinate lente". (Feel free to correct my Latin.)
Lwyd, scientists give their opinions, politicians make decisions.
There are statistics from some survey suggesting that approximately 15% of Londoners and 5% elsewhere have had the disease. I can't remember source.