We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
L’affaire Cummings Please. Stop acting like this Dominic Cummings farrago is actually about “what Dom Cummings did within the context of Wuhan Coronavirus in the UK”.
It ain’t.
Almost everything in UK media & politics makes perfect sense when viewed through the lens of Brexit, and that will be true until 1st January 2021.
Cummings is usually described as ‘hard line’ on the recommendations he gives regarding Brexit. It is obvious that the Cummings lynch mobs are really only interested in ‘salvaging’ some kind BRINO from the ‘catastrophe’ of Brexit.
In spite of coronavirus, it is still actually Brexit that really still drives everything in UK. Everyone worldwide is going to try and use coronavirus to leverage their preexisting political objectives, and UK is no exception. Normal politics will resume next year.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Adam Smith said (quoting from memory)
but your link is an example of a media guy being fairly foolish. Let us hope they shoot themselves in the foot.
One can meet ordinary members of the public who have been sold media obfuscation. I value being able to falsify the accusation in a civil, swift, precise manner.
Also, I like to know I don’t just back my side regardless, as the remoaners do theirs. I like knowing that Cummings is innocent, just as I like knowing I care and the MSM don’t. The checking effort is tedious, but worth it to me.
I think this does nothing but fire up Boris’ reputation, those who don’t like Tories or Boris in particular, whether it be just political tribalism or Brexit, are never going to be satisfied, but the general opinion will be that Boris is doing ok, he’ll carry on spouting the old patriotic “blitz spirit” that appeals to many and makes anyone opposing him to be some kind of quisling or incessant complainer (see Thatcher’s “moaning minnies”), he has a modicum of sympathy having been at death’s door and his new baby, and seeing as public opinion of the press has dropped down the toilet recently it would seem obvious many are not taken in by blatant partisan reporting, even with the steady influx of “talking heads” on the news that are really left wing activists spouting their vitriol, it’s almost as if they don’t think the public read anything on the internet or find out facts for themselves.
I imagine Perry is right just as Coronavirus here in the US is almost entirely about the Presidential election.
But I keep hearing about this Cummings thing and I don’t really understand what it is that he has been accused of. Does anyone know of (or can anyone give) a fair, both sides of the argument, summary of what the brouhaha is all about?
I’m pretty sure leveraging crises for preexisting political objectives is normal politics.
In the UK Labour getting a real drubbing in the elections… did nothing to return politics to normal.
In the U.S., if Trump and the Rs win as big in November… that will do nothing to return politics to normal.
The new politics is total Trump/Boris/Cummings/Brexit Derangement Syndrome, all the time. It’s not likely to go away. It’s a form of extortion. Those who want to not care about politics will need to vote Labour/Democrat in order for them to stop being such clowns. Of course, if (when) then get power back, they’ll not likely go back to the halcyon days of… the 1950s, I guess — not bloody likely. This is the new revolution, innit. At least we don’t have dear-leader-only content everywhere yet.
I don’t think the government are being nearly robust enough on this. They are still allowing statements that Mr. Cummings broke the rules to go unchallenged. He didn’t break the rules, he maintained isolation in his car and he put nobody else at risk.
They should be stressing that, and also quoting Jenny Harries’s advice.
They missed an open goal yesterday when that Scottish man resigned.He said that some of his constituents had been unable to attend funerals – Mr. Cummings did not attend his uncle’s funeral.
They could do with someone like The Donald or The Donald’s Press Secretary to deal with this.
Unfortunately, at the moment too many people are still being led by the MSM. And the MSM have made a deliberate decision not to report this matter honestly.
You misunderstood the point I am making. Yes, leveraging crises for preexisting political objectives is to be expected, but everything being about Brexit is not ‘normal politics’.
Ha. You wish Perry. 😆
We’ll just move on from the practicalities of BRExit to the realities of being post-BRExit. Every article from the Remoaners will be about “How x was made worse because of BRExit” ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Although Sir Keir Starmer might be of the opinion that “BRExit is done”, I’m sure some political chancer sees the possibility of rejoining the EU as a route to power.
Nope. This won’t be “over” until the EU itself collapses and I can’t see that happening for a few more years yet.
Exactly my point. We are not in a party-politics-as-usual state of affairs. We are in an everything-is-still-about-Brexit state of affairs.
US & UK politics has vastly less in common than is often imagined. In 2021 the Yanks will still in a state of Trump Derangement Syndrome if Trump wins again. But Brexit Derangement Syndrome will be pointless, it really will be over, and Cummings will just be another wonk. US politics will be a fascinating Trump obsessed shitshow, UK politics will go back to turgid party political grind by a cast of mediocracies.
Depends. Sometimes and endless tantrum just gets ignored.
Telly off, newspapers unbought on shelf, news websites unclicked.
Easy to burn out the public interest that is already waining from the constant Coronaphobia
The leftist Circus of Evil will not go away until the left are systematically taken to pieces.
The problem is that Blojo BlueLabour Johnson is part of that left and has neither brains nor balls nor the desire or even adequate understanding for the task.
PdeH–I think you forget that a massive worldwide depression will soon be the main news item to be twisted by political-media scum.
In the US it is the economic issue they wanted against Trump but the left is up to its arse in the LD mess and I think Trump can avoid the flying shitstorm if folks can be focused to remember that ALL political scum were involved. And that Ferg n’Fauci are creatures of the left as are most rogue Govscum.
Likewise in the UK Johnson is a LD fuckwit. But ALL political shite dined on Prof Pantsdown’s turd sandwich and ALL of the scum voted for lockdown. Now MSM vermin will try to put it all on Bloj and the crucial media battle will be to point out all poliscum were responsible along with one third to half the nannyed bedwetting UK public. Said public will look for a scapegoat–cos otherwise it is their own cowardly fault–and that is the danger.
Blojo will have to get used to brassing it out as never before in modern political history.
I don’t like that at all but any replacement feasible would be far WORSE–so that is where we should lend what support we can—for now.
@Mr Ecks – What we need is a good war to trim the fat a little and purge the waste.
Maybe we should invade France? I’ve always fancied a nice apartment on the Cote d’Azure.
Make France England Again!
An interesting idea Mr Galt–but where will the troops come from?
The UK now pisses its pants over an imaginary germ Apocalpse. The old Bulldog Spirit is “decayed and laid in bed” as the Tudor’s put it regarding England’s once vaunted archery skills.
Dunno, but the idea of the conscripts of the 1st Wessex Tranny division storming the beaches of Normandy in LGBTQ+ rainbow coloured hair (and getting mown down by French machine guns) is a compelling one.
Might not be the most effective way of invading France, but it would solve a lot of other problems.
😆
I haven’t forgotten that at all! And until the end of the year, it will be “We must delay Brexit because of the massive worldwide depression!” 😉
John Galt, I quite like the idea of committing the 1st Wessex Tranny division not to an attack on Normandy but rather a raid against Dieppe 😉
Politics in the US may have less than alleged in common with the politics in the UK (or there again, it may), Perry, but one could claim that MSM interviewers here and there have points of resemblance – compare your OP link with this (h/t instapundit). 🙂
Thank you for that link Niall.
The term “comedy gold” has rarely been more appropriate.
Yes indeed, when it comes to media at least, US and UK have become strikingly similar in that UK press more and more resembles the US intellectual media near-monoculture. T’was not always thus in UK, as pointed out by Jim Hacker.
But UK & US have different political pressure points & underpinning culture. That said, one of the worst imports from the USA, one thankfully still resistible, is toxic American discourse, notions & obsessions with and about race. As far back as Frederick Douglass, upon visiting UK he observed the British lack on fixation on skin colour vis a vis his homeland. Too many people want to change that on this side of the Atlantic.
I’ll summarise. Part of the issue is that too brief a summary is likely to mislead. Read the long thread of Natalie’s post for a range of views. Be aware that some false (and other almost-certainly false) information was thrown into the debate before and during the timespan of that discussion, and also some clarifications.
DEEP BACKGROUND: many think Cummings the genius whose strategy secured victory in the Brexit referendum. Remoaners put the word ‘evil’ before ‘genius’. I have remoaner friends who believe with religious fervour that Boris is an idiot they could take out in a week were he not protected by the wickedly clever advice of Cummings whispered in his ear. They HATE Cummings.
SHALLOW BACKGROUND: the slogan for the lockdown was “Stay at Home; Protect the NHS; Save Lives”. The rules for the lockdown proclaimed in late March have specified exceptions to ‘Stay at Home’, but most people only recall the ones they themselves needed, e.g. you could drive to shops for food and you could walk or cycle once a day outside. Those exceptions that most people used came with “stay local, please” advice. Many ordinary citizens do not clearly distinguish the slogan from the rules.
One exception was: you can travel if you have reasonable excuse that your travel is to care for, or ensure care for, a vulnerable person, such as a young child.
CUMMING’S ACTION: one evening, his wife became too ill with the virus to care for their four-year-old son. He (correctly) expected to become ill himself in two or three days and too ill to care for their son shortly thereafter. He appealed to his extended family for aid.
His two teenage nieces offered to care for the son as, if and when needed. Since they were too young to fall ill, let alone die, they were seen as ideal take-over carers. They lived with their family in Durham 260 miles away on a farm with some concrete-block building suitable for living in while isolated. They proposed the Cummings family occupy the building in isolation, and the nieces join them in isolation as soon as neither husband nor wife could care for the son.
The next morning, Cummings, not yet ill, so able to drive, put family in car, drove in single leg without stopping to the farm, and went into isolation.
Portraying a brief version of this as breaking the rules, to people who recall the slogan, not the details, is easy. Any confusion of details helps this, e.g. reports implying the nieces’ parents would do the care and so be exposed and/or that the child would come out of isolation to be cared for, so be at large in Durham, etc., etc. These ideas occurred both through natural misunderstandings of a gradually emerging story and through heavy spin.
Cummings and Boris are not finding it easy to change the narrative that has been sprung on them.
Some who grant the above nevertheless claim he had a duty to seek harder for nearer child care before doing what he did – all that emphasis on ‘stay local’. It is clear that on the dread evening, Cummings fell on the family offer like a drowning man clutching a lifeline and did not think much about the technicalities. Others say that ‘looks like he broke the rules’ is enough reason for a government adviser to stop embarrassing the government and resign. It seems no-one has been fined for using the same exception as their excuse for travel – but IIUC the search is not yet nearly over for a was-fined or a wasn’t-fined member of the public who did something sufficiently similar to be a test case.
Finding anyone (on either side) who can truly say they are just thinking of the lockdown technicalities is a bit like Diogenes and his lamp.
One extra detail. I have read elsewhere that Cummings’s wife discussed the trip in a radio 4 interview a month ago with zero reaction. Clearly neither Cummings and his wife or anyone else thought any rules had been broken at that time.
Yes, they’ll do a Dunkirk to evacuate the camps at Calais and bring them to safety in the UK, I suspect that the UK Border Force would somehow find the resources to do it as and when the order comes via Boris’s fiancée.
No one criticising him has yet said that Mr Cummings ought to have stayed put and put his child into the care of the local authority if needed, or seek help from it (the latter being the gist of some Medical Officer’s general advice at the time, without specifics).
The reason being that they know how repulsive it would sound as a suggestion?
Yes Perry it is about the independence of the United Kingdom from the European Union – Mr Cummings was a supporter of that, and his enemies were (and ARE) against independence.
But this is just part of a much wider matter.
Rule by the European Union is just an example of the type of government that the international elite (including the Big Business elite) want – a disguised tyranny.
Sadly the people do not have much influence in British politics – only sometimes do the opinions of the people defeat the “expert” elite (I have not got time to write my normal rant against John Stuart Mill and co – so just assume it in here), but the European Union and World “Governance” bodies are designed to make sure that the ordinary people NEVER have an influence.
Basically the international establishment elite look at the State Motto of South Dakota “Under God The People Rule” and say to themselves “that sums up what we are AGAINST”.
Mr Cummings is seen as being broadly for the ordinary people against the establishment elite – so the establishment elite take special pleasure in trying to get ordinary people violently against him.
As for Prime Minister Johnson.
He never seems to follow the advice of Mr Cummings anyway – hence we still have lunatic schemes such as “HS2”.
What is the point of being an adviser to a person who does not follow your advice?
@niall thanks for the excellent summary.
You have clearly never been a consultant: some advice gets followed, some does not 😉
@PdH: I agree that in the UK the crazy is about Brexit, but I’m not remotely certain that once there’s nothing more to be done about Brexit that the crazy will stop. I feel like it’s much easier to predict that after Brexit is well and truly done, something else will come up. You might find a terrible revanchist feeling in society against brexiteers. You might find a campaign to rejoin the EU. You might find the next thing, whatever it is.
Here in the U.S. there’s nothing like EU membership to get all the usual suspects so exercised. It’s all just about power, and not allowing a candidate to become President (or preside effectively) who has the ideas/rhetoric/willpower to move the Overton window to the right significantly, and/or make it much harder to impose left-wing policies later. Now why would that not be so in the UK as well? You think this is about Brexit. I think it’s about Cummings being the kind of politico who can set back Labour a decade or two.
It’s probably worth having a little bit of a Google to see the other side.
There’s a bunch of fictions going on.
His kid isn’t autistic. That’s just a lie.
The Spectator and the Radio 4 interview did not say that they drove 260 miles to Durham. They both said said (falsely) that the Cummings isolated in London, either specifically in the case of the FT report, or by commission in the case of the Spectator report (“we emerged into London lockdown – no mention of a 260 mile dash south before hand) or the radio 4 interview, which did not mention a 260 mile dash up the country.
They lied, or misled. Thats why people are losing their shit, including at those who are “lawyering” this for partisan purposes.
neonsnake,
Thanks for the corrections. I’ve not seen the FT article (is there a quote or non-paywalled link?). I had picked the information up from unreliable sources, and not previously seen anyone challenge the claim.
It doesn’t change the conclusion, but it’s good to see the other side of the debate. 🙂
Perry highlights a real problem here.
Paul Marks would of course blame the Frankfurt School, and he would be right about that.
Somebody (such as yours truly) might also surmise that it is an over-reaction to Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech.
But the deep reality is that, wherever there are ethnic tensions, the ruling class is bound to exploit them. If they don’t, then a new class will take over by exploiting ethnic tensions.
Don’t get me wrong, i accept unreservedly that the US needed to integrate Black and Hispanic minorities, rather than ethnically cleanse them; and that former colonial powers such as Britain and especially France were right to allow immigration (within reason) from former colonies. At the same time, these countries, and others, should have been wary of the opportunities for a power grab.
As for countries that do not have much of a colonial legacy: why give opportunities for a power grab?
I don’t know how to post screenshots.
The Spectator article mentioned nothing of a 260 mile dash to Durham; I’ve read it. Instead, it implied that they stayed in London, with the phrase, “we emerged into comical London lockdown”.
Same with the radio 4 interview. No mention of a 260 mile dash to Durham.
Did they lie? No. Not strictly. But they implied, as per the FT articles, that they isolated in London.
It later transpired that “Dom” visited Barnard Castle, ostensibly test his ability to drive. Barnard Castle is a sight-seeing destination of the area.
As it happens, the day he chose to do this was his wife’s birthday. So, he chose to, by sheer coincidence, do a 60 mile round trip, unsure of his ability to safely drive, with his wife and child in the car? On her birthday? By coincidence?
One suspects not.
The problem is manifold – he’s breached the spirit of the rules, if not the law. Sure, we can lawyer the shit out of it, but 59% (at last count) of the country aren’t accepting that. Brexit is irrelevant, as is Labour vs Tory. They’re just not relevant. So let’s not pretend they are.
The real interesting thing, to me, is how people feel about his visit to Barnard Castle, on his wife’s birthday. That’s the one where any credibility of “honesty” gets lost. My bullshit-0-meter, at that point, goes through the roof. It’s like, really? Come on. He went to Durham, because it was “nicer” than staying at home. He breached the rules. He took his wife out for a day-trip, because it was her birthday.
That’s all.
We can sympathiese, even empathise.But he breached the “rules”, and should go.
Man, if that was the meta-rule, so so so many U.S. politicians and media personalities would have to go too.
I bet the same is true in the UK, though I don’t know that for a fact.
Who isn’t tired of the double-standards?
This Cummings thing, it’s almost as if we are seeing a gaggle of Gollums go after Bilbo Baggins because he’s got ‘their’ Ring.
Quite possibly so.
No, that is absolutely not why, at least not anyone in the media 😆
Preposterous. In fact, infantile. This is politics, so play politics or be irrelevant.
“Did they lie? No. Not strictly.”
Ah. and isn’t this the problem? It’s not what they wrote, it’s what the people reading it see in their own heads. And everybody’s head is different.
“As it happens, the day he chose to do this was his wife’s birthday.”
OK. And?
“So, he chose to, by sheer coincidence, do a 60 mile round trip, unsure of his ability to safely drive, with his wife and child in the car?”
I just Googled it, and I’m told it’s 16 miles each way, so 32 miles round trip. It’s the first place you come to on the main road south. It’s probably the first place with a convenient place to park.
And one would assume that nobody that intelligent is stupid enough to get in a car if their eyes are funny or they’re feeling ill when they set off. The issue is rather whether, having just recovered from a serious illness, they have the stamina to drive a long way. His wife would need to be in the car in case she had to take over and drive them back. And they could hardly leave the kid, could they?
On the one hand, the main question is “Do you have any actual proof?” In matters of criminal accusations we believe in fair trial, presumption of innocence, chain of evidence, all that malarkey.
And on the other, the question is “Is this really how you want the lockdown to be enforced on everyone?” If Mrs Average from some council estate was to fall ill, and in a panic go on a long trip to isolate near a relative to ensure her 4 year old could be looked after by relatives, and got found out, would you really think it necessary that she be publicly shamed before the entire nation and fired from her job? If Mr Median carelessly steps closer than two metres to Miss Mode in the supermarket, clearly a breach of the regulations, he should be forced to resign and be made to starve in a gutter? Is that how you want them to treat all of us?
The police have been given instructions not to impose harsh penalties on people, even when they are unarguably and unambiguously breaking the rules, but to engage and explain, and let it pass if people turn around and go home. The penalty, even when imposed, is on the level of a parking ticket. The police were specifically called in this case and decided they did not need to take any action at all. Do you really think they should get every person who broke the rules fired? On the basis of no more than circumstantial suspicion? Is this the Britain we want to live in?
Or is it one rule for us, and another rule for our political enemies?
Assuming you support the lockdown, and believe it to be saving lives, is this the thanks we give to the architects of our salvation? They saved the lives of half a million of us, so we’ll kick them in the teeth for the temerity. I can certainly understand enemies of the lockdown thinking that way, but why would its supporters?
I think it’s pretty clear. They wouldn’t want or expect such harsh penalties to be applied to some poor council house tenant. It’s political emnity, pure and simple.
And that’s even before we “lawyer the shit” out of the point that the rules do grant leeway if you have a reasonable excuse, as was made perfectly clear when the rules were first introduced and everyone in the media started trying to come up with counterexamples and edge cases to challenge the government on their meaning. Boris talked a lot about “common sense”. It’s apparently a lot rarer commodity than the name would imply.
And finally, this is all just hilarious coming from the same bunch of people filmed packed together on the pavement outside Dominic Cummings’ house, that they all non-essentially travelled miles to instead of ‘staying at home’. They sure had a different understanding of the rules there! Has a single one of those journalists or photographers been fired? Or resigned? Have their editors, who sent them there to get the pictures? Has the Twitter mob chasing Cummings also demanded the destruction of those journalists’ careers? Have the Guardian or BBC demanded it? No? Well then! So much for this being purely about people “breaking the rules”!
Just to be clear:
If we’re talking about criminal law, there’s no such thing as breaking the spirit of the law. You either violate the explicit and clear rule as it was properly passed and published, or . . . nothing.
If we’re just speaking of rules of social acceptability, that’s another thing.
The government ought not be punishing a violation of a rule of social acceptability. But as to whether a government official whose job hinges on appointment rather than election can keep his job, that’s not technically a government punishment.
neonsnake (May 27, 2020 at 7:48 pm), I noted here that a common assumption on our side – that the R4 interview and article mentioned Durham – was, like some hasty assumptions made on the other side, wrong. I then noted that Dominic’s explanation for it obviously had content, given the reporter behaviour we’ve seen outside his London house.
(Now that it has become clear that the Durham police advice to him was no criticism but advice on security, another obvious assumption – which may or may not be true – is that it would include advice not to advertise his presence in Durham. I mention this more as another example of how quickly one can make an assumption than for its having more than a minor justifying effect on stuff said or written soon after.)
That said, this case is a warning – one his critics need far more than his friends in this case, but one we should all recall – against turning assumptions into facts. “He drove 260 miles” offered an obvious assumption he broke the rules, but one that more detailed study dispels. The attempts to use minor details to keep the story alive remind me of the other accusations against Kavanaugh that were floated as the main one floundered.
I had an accidental edge on most people in this one. We had a vulnerable person – 90-year-old lady to visit&sort-out, not 4-year-old boy to transport – so, even earlier in lockdown than Cummings, I was in my car and rehearsing in my head my “reasonable excuse” (“… vulnerable person, officer …”, repeating the phrases said in the briefings) to give, should any police car pull me over. A few years earlier and we’d have been driving 280 miles – Stirlingshire to Shropshire – but luckily she had relocated to Scotland after her husband died. So I was more focussed than some on how “vulnerable person” meant you could go driving – and that there was one law for me and the same law for Cummings, and I was not minded to become retrospectively a criminal, even in theory, just so some politicos could set-up a rival.
@John Galt “What we need is a good war to trim the fat a little and purge the waste…”
Be careful for what you wish.
Little noticed in the news is that India and China are having a small shooting confrontation.
Very reminiscent of “Not Yet The Times”. A tiny article on page 5 mentioned “Small war in Asia, not many dead”. It was only when you read the cricket report that you understood the poor performance of the touring England team in the Test Match was due to the fallout, and the lack of crowds likewise.
As has been mentioned before, the CCP has lost the Mandate of Heaven, and will be looking for distractions. For some: time to stimulate the aggregate demand.
https://i0.wp.com/media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbsdmeSTbU1qcznab.jpg
1) Apparently not one told by him, just by an anonymous tweeter. It was then echoed round the web more by opponents dialling down their sympathy than supporters alleging it made the difference (as far as I can see, but I could believe the Google-based web-search-engine I chanced to use showed me negative links disproportionately in the early pages). The change in tone speaks loudly to Perry’s point that this is driven by truth-indifferent politics.
2) If Alexander were autistic, that would have been a point (a rather trivial one) against the Cummings’ driving to Durham. Ordinary 4-year-olds want their parents at hand and prefer familiar relatives to total strangers, Autists add to this a preference for things – the bed they sleep in, the room they know – so would adapt less well to an abrupt move to Durham (e.g. as against Dom’s father driving the nieces down to London and dropping them off, and then himself driving back again, which would also have been 100% legal under the vulnerable-person rule although a 520-mile drive instead of a 260 one.)
Given this obvious bomb lurking in any claim that “Dom is justified because his son’s autistic”, one should not assume the true motives of the anonymous tweeter were to help Cummings. The idea could have been to sucker supporters into echoing it and then blow it up under them. (But probably it was just the usual web nonsense.)
In Dom’s version, the temporal relationship is to the day the doctor cleared them to leave isolation and travel back to London.
Either you are suggesting Dom slipped the doctor a few quid to delay clearing them till his wife’s birthday or … well, what exactly are you suggesting?
Sure, but when you write a very detailed piece on how the virus affected you, including notes on her son administering Ribena to Dominic, but don’t mention worrying about childcare, don’t mention a 260 mile trip to be near to his parents/nieces, even while describing the 24 hour period between him rushing home and then spending the next 10 days or so laid up in bed, it looks like a deliberate omission. When you talk about “emerging from quarantine into the almost comical uncertainty of London lockdown”, without mentioning that they first emerged into Durham, and then drove 260 miles back down to the comical uncertainty of London, it looks like a deliberate omission. When the FT reports that they’re quarantining in London for 7 days, and neither of them correct this, despite writing an article on how the virus affected them (him, primarily), and go on Radio 4 and not mention it, it looks like a deliberate omission.
A lie? Not technically, no. But no mention of the journey north, no mention of the trip to Barnard Castle. So while it wasn’t strictly a lie, it was not open and honest either.
So, why didn’t they say that they’d travelled? It could have been used as an example of one of those “exceptional circumstances”, so that other people in similar positions, who were suffering anxiety over what to do in the case of falling ill, could have reassurance. Instead, it was hidden.
And whilst the legal clauses may (I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer) make provision for his actions, the guidelines/rules that were being pushed out were clear – if you are self-isolating, you “do not leave your home for any reason. If you need food or medicine, order it online or by phone, or ask someone to deliver it to your home.” I’m also looking at a screenshot from the time from HM Government which states clearly “Breaking the rules is breaking the law”. I would think the majority of people would have thought, at the time, that a 260 mile trip was illegal, not just “against guidelines”, if there’s a legal difference between the two.
So most people will not take that to include moving from one house to another, in order to be in a better position to cope. If that was the case, there’s many people who that would have applied to, and who would have benefited from that being made more obvious.
I’ve just googled it, and I make it 23 miles from DH1 3SU to Barnard Castle – so not the 30 miles that is being reported and that I said earlier, but still a significant distance. It’s not the first place he could park – it’s not even the first castle enroute! – so it raises significant questions over why he travelled there. As I said, I believe he wanted a day out with his wife for her birthday. It’s plausible that his tale of “checking he could drive” is true, but the coincidence of his wife’s birthday is too much for me to believe.
YMMV, maybe I’m just cynical.
Well, that’s only looking at one side of the equation – the lives saved – and not the lives lost.
Forgive me, I really don’t want to get involved in discussions over whether we’ve done a great or a terrible job as a country – but suffice to say that I don’t think it’s been perfection (not saying I could have done better, and I fully get that everyone involved was working with imperfect information). So supporting (however grudgingly) the lockdown is not necessarily the same as supporting the actions leading up to it, and throughout it.
And for Mr, Mrs and Ms Average, Median and Mode, this trip coincided roughly with the time when those people were being spoken to and/or fined for playing in their front gardens, for using chalk to draw up 2m lines outside their shop, and getting police letters for delivering food to vulnerable family members – as well as the more unambiguous behaviours.
“Lockdown” and “social distancing” are, to me, two different things. However, they’ve been inextricably linked together now, in this tangled mass called “the rules”. So when one of those things (lockdown) is broken with no consequences to the person doing it, the support for the other (social distancing) is weakened as well.
As we ease out of “lockdown” now and in the next few weeks, the importance of “social distancing” only goes upwards. It’s largely unenforceable by law, it needs to be something that people do spontaneously because they support it – so any show of breaching the “rules”, especially by someone like Cummings, is very, very dangerous. And to support him, suggests that the “rules” weren’t as important as we were told. And if those rules (particularly “stay at home”) aren’t important, then why is staying 2m away important? Or not having large gatherings for hours at a time at 2m distancing?
We’re already seeing people flouting social distancing, in small pockets. The people who are coming out against Cummings are (and I know this won’t apply to all of them, some are just delighted to have a pop at him) doing so because they’re scared that his actions will undo the sacrifices that everyone has made (to a lesser or greater degree) over the last few months, by encouraging more people to flout social distancing measures.
(ETA: I’m thoroughly in agreement that the actions of the paps outside his house were bang out of order)
I trust the lady in question is well?
I too had reason to delve slightly deeper into the relevant regulations. I concluded rapidly that driving to deliver food/medicines etc to vulnerable people breached neither the spirit nor the letter; nor did I consider it to be “wrong” in my own head. I wasn’t actually concerned about being pulled over, since I felt that I could provide the addresses of said people, who are vulnerable to the point of receiving “Boris Boxes”.
I also had to plan for a certain situation. In one of those instances, it’s a family with two small children, and the father has late-stage cancer, and is currently unable to look after himself, to a degree, or the children; everything is falling on the mother. If the mother becomes ill, who looks after the children?
We concluded that the rules were that neither parent could legally leave the house (except in the event of having to be hospitalised), but that instead, at earliest opportunity, someone could pick up the children and take them back and look after them.
Together with the other “What should I do if…” materials, we concluded that the parents could not bring the children to us, but that we would have to collect them ourselves.
(luckily for all involved, we’ve not had to go beyond the planning stage)
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/27/democrat-lockdowners-keep-getting-caught-breaking-their-own-rules/
Is it not the same in the UK? I bet it is.
Hypocrisy for me but not for thee.
I’m bored.
“So, why didn’t they say that they’d travelled?”
Dominic explained that in the press conference. He routinely gets lots of people on his doorstep harassing him and his family. He didn’t want any of his relatives to face the same thing. (As is now happening, because of this whole affair.) I can certainly understand why he would not want to be specific about exactly where he was or who he was with.
“And whilst the legal clauses may (I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer) make provision for his actions, the guidelines/rules that were being pushed out were clear – if you are self-isolating, you “do not leave your home for any reason.”
What if the house is on fire?
What if you can’t breathe, and need an ambulance to take you to hospital? Can the ambulance drivers take you out of the house if you are in isolation?
What if you’re being subjected to domestic or sexual abuse? Do you have to stay with your abuser?
What if you have a heart attack? Are you required to stay there and die? What if a neighbour has a heart attack and their family calls for help? Do you leave them to die?
What if you have a baby in the house needing care, and you are too sick to care for them? Are you required to let them starve?
“It’s plausible that his tale of “checking he could drive” is true, but the coincidence of his wife’s birthday is too much for me to believe.”
OK, for the sake of argument, let’s suppose without proof that it’s so. What’s your view on the case of Stephen Kinnock, MP for Aberavon in South Wales and son of the famous former leader of the Labour Party?
So technically, Mr Kinnock has a reasonable excuse taking food and medicines round to his father. But it was no doubt not a coincidence that he chose to do that legitimate task on his father’s birthday. I’d say that’s OK. The rules say that’s OK. How about you?
Stephen Kinnock got away with it – the Guardian treated his case sympathetically. Should we go back and get him fired?
“And for Mr, Mrs and Ms Average, Median and Mode, this trip coincided roughly with the time when those people were being spoken to and/or fined for playing in their front gardens, for using chalk to draw up 2m lines outside their shop, and getting police letters for delivering food to vulnerable family members – as well as the more unambiguous behaviours.”
And in many of those cases we argued – rightly – that they shouldn’t have been. The police were struggling to understand the rules as much as the public. I’ll forgive the police their errors as easily as I will the public. (One rule for all…) But the fact is that the law should, does, and always did allow for common sense.
We’re on the side of Mrs Average. We’re on the side of people spoken to for playing in their front garden. We’re on the side of a lenient and reasonable interpretation. So why have we suddenly switched sides when it’s somebody the left happen not to like? Coincidence?
“As we ease out of “lockdown” now and in the next few weeks, the importance of “social distancing” only goes upwards. It’s largely unenforceable by law, it needs to be something that people do spontaneously because they support it”
Yes, but we also want them to do so using common sense and understanding.
If people are liable to not flee from a burning house because they seriously believe that the lockdown rules demand it, their misunderstanding needs to be corrected. Likewise if they put their children in danger. That sort of idiocy is even more dangerous than the virus.
And I think doing so ought to help trust and support. If people think they’re not allowed to break lockdown even in an emergency, then no wonder they think it’s tyrannical and draconian! It would be unnecessarily inhumane.
Not even the Klingons would agree to it! meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH 🙂
Look, we’re not going to change each other’s minds, so I’m going to drop it.
Some of my position is based on not actually believing the prepared statement, which I of course cannot prove, so is somewhat fruitless to argue.
And some of my position is based on a feeling that the general public are now feeling that there’s a “one rule for them and one for the rest of us”, and will use that frustration to decide that if it’s “ok for him to do it, then it’s ok for me”, and will ignore sensible social distancing measures (and cause a second spike) as we begin to ease the strict-ish lockdown that we’ve been in up until now. Which of course is unknowable at this stage, so again, somewhat fruitless.
ETA. Maybe (?) surprisingly, I’ve never been a fan of Star Trek, and am only passingly aware of the characteristics of the various races, so I had to google the phrase. I’m guessing it’s well-known?
“And some of my position is based on a feeling that the general public are now feeling that there’s a “one rule for them and one for the rest of us”, and will use that frustration to decide that if it’s “ok for him to do it, then it’s ok for me””
Yes, it’s a pity they highlighted it and reported it so widely, in precisely those terms. If the media had kept quiet, that problem wouldn’t arise.
In a certain sense, we are therefore agreeing. We both agree that, unless Cummings’ version of events can be shown to be false, he cannot justly be charged with breaking the lockdown rules – he is innocent unless fresh evidence of some other action makes him guilty. Similarly, you or I cannot be fined for breaking the lockdown rules, though if evidence emerged that either of us had, then the offender could (by hypothesis) be fined.
At first we were very alarmed; it looked obviously like a case of the virus. As the days progressed, however, greatly helped by our knowing her prior health experiences, we realised that it was ordinary flue dangerously exacerbated by undiagnosed anaemia. We put her on over-the-shelf iron tablets and persuaded the doctor over the phone to prescribe antibiotics for the flue and stronger iron tablets – and after a week, things were looking much better. If it had not been us, I think this would have been missed and she could have died. The case is a good example of how the lockdown can kill people. In normal times, a doctor would have visited and done tests, and likely diagnosed this anyway, but no doctors were visiting.
So the difference between us is that you thought the rule against leaving the house if infected abrogated the rule allowing travel to ensure care for a vulnerable person, whereas I (and Nullius and others) did not. I know of no chapter and verse clarification of that (by all means inform me if in fact the rule precedence was spelt out somewhere clearly enough that the Cummings – and we – should have known it).
I fully appreciate that mere common sense minimising danger does not prove what the rules (if clarified) would have been, even if there were a clear difference. In my version, the Cummings enter their car in their driveway, drive directly to the Durham driveway and immediately enter isolation, after which the nieces join them at need. In your version, either the nieces (aged 16 and 17 IIRC) can drive to London or a third party drives them and then drives back alone. Either journey can be done without getting out for a stroll en route (though I think the guy who drives to London and then back to Durham will need to take an empty milk bottle or similar and pull over onto the hard shoulder for a few minutes on the way back. 🙂 ).
Some indeed are – because they have been propagandised to feel that by a bunch of PC types who, as Perry very justly says, do not care tuppence about the ostensible issue and are just running a standard disinformation operation to pursue their agenda. When Varadkar has a picnic with his mates (seems an indisputable violation) or Kinnock visits his dad (Nullius covers that one), the feeling is not preached that “it’s one rule for them and another for us”.* Nor would the idea have been spread in this case had MSM types who could not care less decided to spread that idea for their own purposes.
—-
* (We, of course, do record when those who love rules betray that they love not to keep them – but we record this rather in a spirit of self-defence, I claim. No doubt you could find some twitterer who screamed about Kinnock and was not so loud in this case. As I said in my summary, finding the truly uninterested Briton might need a modern Diogenes with a powerful lamp, though I claim one can reach a disinterested conclusion.)
Kinda. I think that there is no rule forbidding travel to ensure care for a vulnerable person, and that in both your case and mine, we’re free and clear (legally, and – hopefully obviously – morally) – because we did not, to the best of our knowledge, have the virus when we travelled. My closest reading of regulation 6 appears to support that, in particular (a) and (d).
With symptoms, the whole thing changes drastically – a swift google brings up this which states that you must not leave the house if you have symptoms. Other sources reinforce that message.
So, I’m not in the place of one rule abrogates the other, I’m in a place of someone without symptoms can indeed travel to someone vulnerable. Someone with symptoms (and members of the same household) should not travel, and people should, instead, come to them.
I’m glad to hear that the lady is doing better. And yes, that example is one of the reasons why I’ve been using the word “grudging” regarding any support I might have for “lockdown” per se, as opposed to “social distancing”, which I’m much more in favour of – I hesitate to say “unequivocally”, only because some smart-arse will inevitably ask me whether I’m in favour of letting a small child drown rather than get within 2m of them while they’re coughing and spluttering up water all over me…
I trust that the antibiotics were not actually for the flu, but to prevent secondary infections?
Snorri Godhi (May 28, 2020 at 7:25 pm) thanks for asking. It wasn’t flue, it was a chest infection – or rather, we were not sure but thought it quite likely, and prudent to prescribe antibiotics, a position the doctor agreed with.
neonsnake (May 28, 2020 at 7:24 pm), your interpretation does create a further scenario. If I have understood you (I may not have), you’re saying the rules would have allowed Dominic (who did not have symptoms at that point), to drive his son (likewise) to Durham, drop him off with the nieces (who would then isolate with him for the appropriate time), and then return to be with his symptomatic wife, but not to have his wife in the car when doing so.
I said above that common sense and what the rules actually demand need not coincide, so that remark does not prove you wrong. If one can find an explicit statement discussing the two rules, or a case of someone being fined, or not fined, for doing the like, then that might establish it. However I assume the MSM have been searching for a fined person – and perhaps others for an unfined one – since this blew up.
My memory (but the paper I read it in has been composted and I could be misremembering) was that on the Tuesday or Wednesday of the first week of lockdown, someone asked Dr Jenny Harries some question about a young child in an infected household. The phrase “I suppose that would be an exceptional case” is in my fallible memory. But – as I’ve noted in other aspects of this – it may be that if I could recover the exact details they might not clarify whether she meant what I thought – or even clarify whether it remained unclear. 🙂
I don’t believe so. If you look at the graphic in the second link in my previous post, then my understanding is Ms Wakefield is person A in household 1.
Dominic, and their son, would be persons 3 and 4 (at the specific moment when they made the journey). As it eventually transpired, he was actually person 2, albeit slightly earlier than in the graphic, by a matter of, I think, a couple of days.
But the point is that the entire household must isolate – regardless of whether you’re symptomatic or not, given what we believe about the incubation period, and the infectiousness of the virus.
(There’s argument that he was first in breach of the rules by returning to work on the Friday (?) having been at home while she was showing symptoms)
My reading of that graphic, and other published materials, is that they should have been isolating (in Islington) from the moment Ms Wakefield showed symptoms on what I believe was the Thursday (I might have the exact days slightly wrong, but the order events occurred is correct)
Not bad! It was Tuesday 24th March, and these were the exact words:
“Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance, and if the individuals do not have access to care support, formal care support or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs.”
Note that it doesn’t say that the infected (or possibly infected) parents can travel, but it very much does imply that the child can leave the house.
(I had that one transcribed already, since it formed part of my back-up if any were needed, in the event of the worst-case scenario I outlined above)
Other related advice says “Essential travel does not include visits to second homes, camp sites, caravan parks or similar, whether for isolation purposes or holidays. People must remain in their primary residence. Not taking these steps puts additional pressure on communities and services that are already at risk.
“People with holiday homes and caravans are still not permitted to travel to their second home or to stay overnight. Leaving your home – the place you live – to stay at another home is not allowed.”
(both from the same document – added emphasis my own)
neonsnake (May 28, 2020 at 9:00 pm), thanks for the extra text:
My understanding (insofar as I can recall it) was that this was telling you to use your family if available, and that it did not withdraw the ‘may travel’ permission that securing care for the small child gave. But as I suspected/remembered, it is vague (unsurprisingly so, I suggest, as Dr Harries could doubtless see imperfections in, and probable objections to, any clearer ruling she gave, plus they clearly hadn’t thought much about it).
AFAICS, the chart of persons A, B and so on is not addressing the case of a household where anyone leaves during the no-leaving period, even a young child, and it is likewise drawn to suggest that all there are there from the start – no-one arrives, not even to care for the young child. So I think it has to be seen as the normal case but not applicable to the case discussed, which is therefore an exception to the guidance – as Dr Harries said.
I’m very happy to grant that your view of how the various rules might have been ordered if anyone had asked is defensible. Perhaps, if Dr Harries had been firmly challenged to expand her vague remarks into detailed rulings on hypothetical cases, she would have ruled out the Cummings example. And there again, perhaps she would not have; the argument that what Cummings did maximised safety and childcare is strong. Nullius’ view that neither she nor anyone else ruled clearly enough to say it was forbidden seems correct to me.
You hinted earlier you were ready to leave this discussion, but then came back (I can understand the conflicting feelings). By all means have the last word and then hint so again (at least AFAIAC) if you wish.
Yeah, I only wanted to drop in a further note because the phrase “reasonable excuse” in one of your posts caught my eye; the word “excuse” implying a vague sense of potential wrongdoing, and I wanted to note that I’d come to the conclusion that a trip to help out a vulnerable person was very much allowed, and you acted legally (and responsibly) without needing an “excuse” as such.
Given our respective natures, plus attitudes to the “rules” in general, and we both came to the same conclusion ref. travel to help vulnerable persons – I note that we can be comfortable that even if we’re both wrong…we can at least be comfortable our wrongness isn’t born of our respective idealogies!!
😉