O/T Disgrace Cummings

[wrinkly]

I have no difficulty with the concept of collective responsibility and - of more relevance to your point and presumably what you actually mean - the need for collective action. I simply don't accept that what Cummings did posed any significant risk and do not think it warrants the hysterical politically motivated response that it has.

You are clinging to your government adviser, but why not think for yourself?

John will be wincing at your straw-manning. I don't think it trivial for politicians to lie. I'm not the party man who has happily spread and 'interpreted' party propaganda, am I, raging?

I do think animosity directed towards you on here is rather sickening. The "fake solicitor" nonsense is extremely childish (I suppose for some it substitutes for the hilarious Warney barbeque/green tea jibes now that we're not actually playing football)
Some posters even seem to have a serious personal vendetta going on.
I often disagree with your opinions but I find that you invariably put your case well and fairly.
I am certainly not wanting to join the lynch mob and I realise that you can easily look after yourself anyway.
So, it's without prejudice that I have to say that I think you are way off the mark with your "no significant risk" line of argument.
I did post this before and you wrote that it had to be taken in context with other posters' comments understating the ridiculous behaviour of the press outside Cummings' house.
However, since then you have repeated it a few times - as I said before this really surprises me.
Even his allies have not been daft enough to suggest that driving up and down the country (at that time) posed no significant risk. Their argument, in his defence, has always been that the "serious" risk to his son outweighed the risk of driving.
The government's position was most definitely that people driving long distances could put strain on the emergency services - services which would be stretched trying to save lives during the pandemic. Several local police forces issued serious warnings for the same reason.
Of course, one person taking a trip is highly unlikely to have an accident. That seems to be your argument, Surely you see the flaw in that? If everybody believes that they are that one person who will not have an accident and the roads get busy the likelihood of affecting the emergency services increases. Who decides who the trusted few are to be who can drive about with "no significant risk"?
Doubtless there are a lot of critics with their own agenda re Cummings but there are a lot of people justified in their anger that he would appear to be one of the exempt few. They may be wrong - his risk assessment re the threat to his son may be right.
However I've not seen anybody else playing down the importance of not driving long distances - just you.
As I said - surprised.

[KerrAvon]

I do think animosity directed towards you on here is rather sickening. The "fake solicitor" nonsense is extremely childish (I suppose for some it substitutes for the hilarious Warney barbeque/green tea jibes now that we're not actually playing football)
Some posters even seem to have a serious personal vendetta going on.
I often disagree with your opinions but I find that you invariably put your case well and fairly.
I am certainly not wanting to join the lynch mob and I realise that you can easily look after yourself anyway.
So, it's without prejudice that I have to say that I think you are way off the mark with your "no significant risk" line of argument.
I did post this before and you wrote that it had to be taken in context with other posters' comments understating the ridiculous behaviour of the press outside Cummings' house.
However, since then you have repeated it a few times - as I said before this really surprises me.
Even his allies have not been daft enough to suggest that driving up and down the country (at that time) posed no significant risk. Their argument, in his defence, has always been that the "serious" risk to his son outweighed the risk of driving.
The government's position was most definitely that people driving long distances could put strain on the emergency services - services which would be stretched trying to save lives during the pandemic. Several local police forces issued serious warnings for the same reason.
Of course, one person taking a trip is highly unlikely to have an accident. That seems to be your argument, Surely you see the flaw in that? If everybody believes that they are that one person who will not have an accident and the roads get busy the likelihood of affecting the emergency services increases. Who decides who the trusted few are to be who can drive about with "no significant risk"?
Doubtless there are a lot of critics with their own agenda re Cummings but there are a lot of people justified in their anger that he would appear to be one of the exempt few. They may be wrong - his risk assessment re the threat to his son may be right.
However I've not seen anybody else playing down the importance of not driving long distances - just you.
As I said - surprised.

You have always come across as a very decent poster, Wrinkly. Thank you for your comments, but you need to be careful lest you attract the attention of my fan club.

I have never expressly claimed to be a lawyer (although I may have dropped the odd hint) and the post after post on the subject by certain people is of little interest to me. It is what it is and it is rather strange.

I stand by my low risk comments. I haven’t tried to look out any statistics, but my experience is that I have been driving since 1983 doing quite a high mileage in some years and have never been involved in an incident in which the emergency services have been required to attend. I don’t think that is an atypical position, which is why I think the notion that Cummings presented an unacceptable risk of such contact when he drove to Durham to be slightly bonkers.

A better reason why I think it wrong to criticise Cummings for the journey to Durham is that I think that if I were in his position – concerned about whether he would continue to care for his son if he and his wife became very ill and with no local family to fall back on - I might well have done as he did. I was pleased to see that the Durham Police took the view that the journey was not in contravention of the law in their eminently sensible statement yesterday.

The trip to Barnard Castle was in a different category. I haven’t seen his press statement, but have read about what Cummings said about it. I can understand why someone might take a short trip to see if they feel comfortable with making a longer one, but the destination and that he had his family with him suggests to me that it was for the purposes of going for a walk (it may have been killing two birds with one stone, of course). Again, however, the actual risk involved was minimal, which, again, was recognised by the Durham Police. And, of course, the guidance was changed a couple of weeks later to allow travel in England for the purposes of taking exercise.

As for the notion that his conduct has somehow weakened the resolve of the public to lock down, I would simply ask ‘really?’. I have been observing lockdown as has everyone I know (to the best of my knowledge) and can’t say that I have felt the urge to start breaking it since the Cummings story broke. It hasn’t caused me to reappraise the risk. I appreciate that some people might use it as an excuse, but, frankly, the likelihood is that they were resistant to compliance in any event.

Nobody knew about what Cummings had done until The Mirror and The Guardian decided that breaking the story about the two low risk trips was in the public interest and the rest of the media and social media decided to have a pile on. I have no doubt that any uptick in infections will now be linked to the story in the same way, notwithstanding the lack of any evidence of a connection.

I think people need to step back, reflect on the reality of what actually happened and the risk that entailed and calm down a bit. We seem to have gone collectively mad.

[rolymiller]

I do think animosity directed towards you on here is rather sickening. The "fake solicitor" nonsense is extremely childish (I suppose for some it substitutes for the hilarious Warney barbeque/green tea jibes now that we're not actually playing football)

I

You may think that the fake solicitor stuff is childish Wrinkly but if he is posing as a solicitor on here he is actually breaking the law and it is a jailable offence. It is that serious. Why does he not just come out and say he is a solicitor etc then. Then we know that he is who he claims to be. We can trust his words. Why would he not answer a very simple question about it even if it was only to shut his detractors up for good. He tantalises us with words which suggest he is in the legal trade but doesn't admit to what he actually does. If he didn't want us to know he was in the legal trade why do this?

While ever he does not do this I think we can safely ignore his opinions on here. The mikemiller Kempo phoney makes a lot of sense.

Don't you think his opinions are very inconsistent? The smooth talking solicitor/ lawyer/ barrister is just a means to give what he says credibility even though, on examination, it is bull sh it.

Don't be fooled you are better than that...

By the way, if I was a solicitor etc I would happily admit it in order to tout for some work.

It does not make sense. The only reason why he does not admit to these things is that he knows it would be illegal to do it if he wasn't.

[KerrAvon]

Nope are you?
Now your question: barrister or solicitor?

Well done. When did you stop? You were driving out to the Peak District at the start of lockdown.

[KerrAvon]

Is it not the case each member of the public made a deal with Gov to stick to the regulations?

Pardon?

[KerrAvon]

I'm not sure the journey he was the problem for me. It was the fact he thought he and his wife had covid that potential could have endangered others plus the 30 mile trip to test his eyesight was a blatant lie.
For me it's a trust issue. I'm ok with him breaking the lock down rules, each to there own. but he has to face conciseness if caught. He got caught so he should step down.

Tbh I'm surprised that the police have not asked him why he thought it was appropriate to drive when he thought his vision was impaired and unsure if his vision was adequate to endure a long journey.

The police have better things to do

[Exiletyke]

The police have better things to do

14000 fines

[WanChaiMiller]

The police have better things to do

Exactly. The police have better things to do than regulate lockdown.

So what is the mental process that compelled the vast majority to adhere to these regulations?

[WanChaiMiller]

Pardon?

What is it you think we've been doing every day for the last few months? How do you think it came about that the vast majority of the population chose to what they have done?

[WanChaiMiller]

Don't ask dumb questions and I won't have to respond in kind. Deal with the public?

Good grief.

I think people chose to abide by the rules for a number of reasons.

The reaction to schools being reopened suggests that many people are doing it for the well being and safety of themselves and their families, which, on the face of it was the motivation for Cumming's decision to drive to Durham. For some it will be because they have got the (mathematical) message that reducing the transmission rate is important in order to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. For others it might be through peer pressure or a fear of being fined. It's probably a combination of factors.

Absolutely. All of the examples youve listed is a series of deals that Johnsons brokered through his various briefings delivered direct to the living room of each individual.

I'll explain it using your examples but you'll have to wait till tomorrow. Im sure you wont be able to sleep in anticipation - lol.