Does anyone seriously even half believe that ***mings thought that by driving from London to Durham to take his sick self, potentially sick wife and child to a different community he was complying with the rules that he had helped to formulate? Any and all of us could have found 'exceptional cir***stances' if we had looked hard enough for them and interpreted them to suit us, but the vast majority of people understood the message we were being given and many ordinary people made serious sacrifices. STAY AT HOME was writ large on the Downing Street lectern at 5pm every day and the personal letter that we all got from Boris couldn't have been clearer on the subject.
I suspect most people feel very strongly that he did was wrong and that he must have known it was wrong, but did it anyway.
To compound matters, he then did a sixty miles round trip with his family in the vehicle to visit a local beauty spot and got out to look at the sights. Again, does anybody seriously believe that he did that to 'test (his) eyesight'? Really??? One of three things occurs to me. Firstly, he might be lying. Secondly, even if he isn't lying that trip could hardly constitute an essential activity so was wrong on that count. Thirdly, if he isn't lying he showed terrible judgment driving when he wasn't sure his eyesight was up to it. It is a bit like flying a plane to find out whether you are over your fear of heights.
Often it isn't the first misdemeanour that brings politicians and public figures down. It is the cover up or the way that they respond to it that does for them. I suspect that is what will happen here. If not it will play out badly for Boris, who will (however much he tries to distance himself from this) be seen as condoning astonishing arrogance and will be tarred with the same brush.
-- Edited by smiler on Tuesday 26th of May 2020 01:15:33 PM
Yes, the sixty miles round trip taken by Mr Cu m m ings in his car accompanied by his wife Mary Wakefield and their son to visit Barnard Castle on Easter Sunday. Mr Cu m m ings wanted to check out his eyesight to see if he would be fit enough to drive from Durham to London on Easter Monday, 13th April 2020. Mr Cu m mings by his own admission said that the whole idea of the trip from London to Durham was to ensure that their son was cared for should Mr C or his wife go down with the virus. I would suggest that the trip to Barnard Castle was irresponsible if Mr Cu m m ings had a problem with his vision and then got behind the wheel of his car whilst his son and wife were passengers. In addition, Mr C u m m ings and his wife were checked over by medics and were given the all clear to make the long journey from Durham and return to London. At no point were Mr C u m m ings by his own admission and his wife, Mary Wakefield tested for Covid19 even though Mr C said that he had exhibited symptoms of the virus and been really ill along with their son, who was taken to hospital because he too was very ill during their stay at Durham.
Mr C's wife does have a driving licence. Why did she not share the driving with her husband on the journey to and from London and also Barnard Castle? Why didn't the string of journalists pick up on this point when Mr Cu m m ings held court with them inside the Downing Street Rose Garden?
Timeline of events as they unfolded ….
On March 27, 11:15am: Prime Minister Johnson - Mr C u m m ings' boss - announces he's been diagnosed with coronavirus. On the same day March 27, around an hour later: Mr C u m m ings is seen running out of Downing Street.
March 30: Downing Street confirms Mr C u m m ings is self-isolating Following reports, Number 10 confirmed Mr C u m m ings and his wife Mary Wakefield had started showing symptoms of coronavirus “over the weekend”. On March 31, Durham police are "made aware of reports that an individual had travelled from London to Durham and was present at an address in the city". The spokesman said Mr u m m ings was self-isolating and staying in contact with Downing Street. He was not tested for coronavirus. Reports say around this time Mr C u m m ings made his trip to Durham.
By 2nd April 2020, doctors were worried that in Johnson’s case, the infection was taking hold. St Thomas’ hospital – just across the Thames from Downing Street – began making preparations to admit the prime minister. In reality, Johnson’s breathing had deteriorated.
April 5: Mr C u m m ings is 'spotted in his father's garden' Mr C u m m ings was reportedly spotted in his dad's garden, just days after contact from police. A neighbour told the Daily Mirror he got the "shock" of his life when he "looked over to the gates and saw him".
On Sunday evening 5th April 2020 Boris Johnson was driven across the Thames and taken to a private room on the 12th floor of St Thomas’ hospital .
Between around March 30 and April 6: Mr C u m m ings becomes very ill with coronavirus symptoms April 12: Mr C u m m ings and wife make trip to Barnard Castle.
-- Edited by wotsisname on Tuesday 26th of May 2020 08:35:34 PM
-- Edited by wotsisname on Tuesday 26th of May 2020 08:36:24 PM
Like the paper said "Stay Elite" - these people will just do as they please and think the rules only apply to the "Great British Public" (a phrase they over use to patronise us all into thinking they give a sh it)
The following is just pure speculation and conjecture. However, it might just resonate with the people who read it. There was this boss of a large corporation who discovered that he had caught a potentially life threatening virus. In fact the large city where the boss and his chief right hand man lived was fast becoming the epicentre for this horrible virus. The boss had a meeting with his top aide. They discussed a way forward for each other and their respective families. The top aide and his boss both knew that the boss was suc***bing to something potentially very serious. The boss knew that he would eventually have to go in to hospital even though he was fighting to run the corporation. The result of the meeting was that the top aide suggested that he didn't want to stay in the city where hundreds of people were dying every day. The top aide had seen how the virus had taken the lives of many people. Those people who had died from the virus, died alone well away from their loved ones who were not allowed to grieve in the usual way. No proper funeral service for the ones who had been taken away from their families and loved ones.
And so , the top aide, should he go down with this virus, did not want to be in that position by being far away from his family and loved ones. The top aide was lucky enough to have a family with land and property large enough to accommodate him and his family. Therefore the top aide, with or without the blessing of his boss decided to make his escape from the city and make his way to his loved ones who were able to accommodate their son and his family.
Very selfish? Perhaps. But given the opportunity, how many people would have done exactly the same as the top aide?
Apparently he or his wife had the virus when they travelled so didn't escape it. So in your story the aide needs to have risked giving it to many more people and also nipped out sightseeing at the same time. We could all travel and stay with distant relatives (we have many in Aberdeen) but it was against the rules...
My story is 'pure speculation and conjecture'. It doesn't actually contain the names of any actual people, real or otherwise. However, there is a story about a man who took his wife and their son on quite a long journey by car. The man wasn't checked over by medics before he embarked on his long journey. He wanted to 'escape' the big city. More fiction or fact? He felt that he was able to drive to his destination. On arrival at the intended destination the man apparently fell ill. His son was ill too. The son was taken to hospital but the man was sick for several days but wasn't hospitalised. His wife recovered from her bout of sickness. It's true that the man ran the risk of transmitting the virus to other people. He said that he was social distancing at all times on his trip. After he had recovered the man said that he was checked over by medics and was given the all clear to travel back to the big city. The man, by his own admission, said that at no time was he or his wife tested for Covid19. Did the man have Covid19? Who knows? Fact or fiction? I'll leave that one for others to chew on.
PS My garden looks better than it has done for years. No more weeds for me. I have rooted them out and replaced them with a few rose bushes. I love a Rose Garden. It's even better than the so called Rose Garden in Downing Street. I never saw one rose bush there last Bank Holiday Monday when a man was addressing the nation about some adventure or other.
PPS They ought to know better in Downing Street that it's horse manure that helps the growth of roses and not bull sh!t.
Stay Safe!
Protect The Vulnerable!
Look After Family And Loved Ones!
If he had accepted that what he did was wrong, shown some humility, apologised and resigned he would be remembered (by me and I suspect many otheŕs) as a man who made an understandable error and took the consequences of it on the chin. Instead he has chosen the path of blaming the press (the defence of first resort used by authoritarians) combined with what is obfuscation at best and lying at worst. He has no regrets, no shame and no honour. What bothers me most is that if he was an elected official he would probably have been forced to resign. But he isnt. He is a man who wields enormous power and influence but he is accountable to nobody, and so has been able to dig his heels in and tough it out, supported by his boss who for some bizarre reason seems to think that standing by the one individual is more important than setting a precedent that could indirectly cost very many lives. I hope that Johnson eventually pays the price. His failure to sack DC is a dereliction of duty.
I've not had too much to say about the C u mmings fiasco. He should have known better and was quite wrong to do what he did. What I do find more distasteful is the the mad melee by the media around him and his family. Talk about trial by media, trash journalism if indeed it can be called journalism.
I'm no apologist for the Tory administration by any means, but there seems to have been no mention of the right honourable Steven Kinnock who, during the lockdown apparently travelled across country to deliver a birthday cake to his father, that great bastion of working class socialism, Barron Kinnock Bedwellty. Double standards all round then.
That's just whataboutism though and used very effectively in the world of Trump to deflect from the main argument. Whether SK did travel with a cake or not it still doesn't have any bearing on why DC who is at the heart of government and behind the "Stay at home..." felt it was ok to drive hundreds of miles and go sightseeing. His eyesight testing claims are utterly ridiculous and Michael Gove saying he has done the same thing to test his eyesight shows these people for what they are and us for believing that sh it - he should have the balls to admit he broke the rules and BJ have the balls to hold him to account.
No I'm not sticking up for one or the other.. Both guilty. Anyone in public life should set an example in every respect, not just during this lockdown either. ALL should be held to account on every occasion.
What Kinnock did was wrong and it was stupid of him. In fact he was so stupid that the reason it came to people's attention was that he put pictures of his visit on his own Twiiter (or Facebook - not sure which) account. Whilst it is correct that ***mings isn't the only one who has flouted the rules and it us also true that everyone (not just him) should be held to account, I would suggest that his case merits particular attention for a few reasons.
Firstly, he has been instrumental in shaping the very rules that he twisted and continues in that capacity.
Secondly, ***mings and his wife were disingenuous about their isolation. They volunteered contributions to Spectator magazine with articles about their experience of isolation without ever mentioning that they had moved to Durham. He only offered an account when he was exposed by others.
Thirdly, ***mings' explanations - including the incredible notion that he needed to drive sixty miles to test whether he was fit to drive or not - were themselves barely believable. In my opinion he is either lying about that or he showed alarmingly poor judgment.
Fourthly - and to my mind most importantly - there is a mechanism by which Kinnock can be judged. His constituents can sack him if they don't approve of him. No such mechanism exists with ***mings. He wields a lot of power and influence over matters that affect all of us but is apparently not accountable to us. His fate lies in the hands of one man, who appears to want to distance himself from it and let it all blow over. I find that troubling.
Kinnock was foolish. ***mings' appear to have been a bit more calculating from start to finish.
-- Edited by smiler on Friday 5th of June 2020 10:30:36 PM
