Don636 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Woke up early this morning, bored so decided, as you do, to have another look through the Government guidance on “Stay at home: guidance for households with possible or confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) infection” I was particularly interested in the advice around dealing with children in the home and what exceptions existed that might permit someone to travel 260 miles to another home. This document has a number of subsections one of which is entitled “ While you are self-isolating, make sure you do the following things”. The first thing to do is - Stay at home. It is stated that - “Nobody should go out even to buy food or other essentials, and any exercise must be taken within your home. If you require help with buying groceries, other shopping or picking up medication, or walking a dog, you should ask friends or family. Alternatively, you can order your shopping online and medication by phone or online.“ I note here that there is no mention of childcare should both parents become incapacitated. There follows a section on Living with children. It states: “We are aware that not all these measures will be possible if you are living with children, but keep following this guidance to the best of your ability. What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to ensure that all members of your household follow this guidance.” Nothing about needing outside assistance with childcare. There then follows advice on such things as avoiding contact with other members of the family who might be infected, hand washing, dealing with coughs and sneezes, face coverings, disposal of waste, laundry, no social visitors to the home, pets. Again, no advice on the possibility that outside childcare might be needed. There is a section entitled “ Looking after your wellbeing while staying at home”. In this section there is a list of things that you can do including one on - “ planning ahead and thinking about what you will need in order to be able to stay at home for the full duration of isolation” Again, nothing specifically about childcare. What then do you do if both parents become too ill to look after a small child or you are concerned that this might become the case? The guidance seems to leave this entirely at the discretion of the parents but it does advise an element of preplanning is required. The options would appear to be a) do nothing and hope for the best - perhaps not the best plan. b) plan to hand the child over to a friend or relative - possible, bearing in mind that children suffer least risk but still a risk of disease transference to the friend and their family. c) have someone come into your home to stay there and look after the child - possible, although you might not actually be infected and they could be bringing it in to your family or you could pass it to them. It is likely that a need to seek outside assistance with childcare would involve some element of risk but there is probably no way round this. This may involve someone travelling away from their own home to undertake the childcare and the guidance permits travel if it is for the purposes of providing care. It might be difficult bringing someone else into your home if there is no room for them but probably workable. There is, of course, another option and this would be to transport your whole family to someone else’s home, rather than just the child, where childcare could be provided .This would appear to involve more risk as a wider group of people might be infected so this option appears to be worse than bringing an individual into your home. But, what if there was another home location you could go to where there was an individual who could look after the child and also an entirely separate house that your family and the person coming in to look after the child could live in separate from the rest of the family living at that location. This appears to be a practical solution although probably available to few people. It is arguable that travelling to such a second home would be permitted as it was for the purposes of providing care. Such travel would come with some risk of disease transference but this could be mitigated with care. Of course, it would be better if options b) or c) above could be followed as this would likely involve less risk. Having read all this again I have concluded that Dominic Cummings might be correct in saying that what he did was lawful. The difference between him and most other people is that he had an option available to him to move to a second location where childcare could be provide with minimal risk. Could he have found someone more local to carry out childcare - I don’t know. Even if he could would it be acceptable to decide that the best option all round was to drive to Durham - who knows. On balance I would say that he should not be punished for making the decision that he did just because he was in the privileged position of having the option of self isolation in Durham. You could argue that perhaps he could have given more thought to how this move would look to the masses who were suffering some degree of hardship through this crisis and stayed at home. At the very least he could have given a better, more heartfelt explanation at the very earliest. I now turn to the Barnard Castle jaunt. I can see no reason for this trip whatsoever under the guidance. If he was concerned about his eyesight he should simply have remained in Durham until he was sure he was fit to drive, or his wife should have driven. I would say he was due a fine for this trip. Should he resign or be sacked for this? I have gone back and forward on this a few times. Any normal person I would say no. A senior government representative though? For myself, based on my rational analysis I would probably still say no although Barnard Castle bothers me. The problem is that neither Cummings nor the government have provided a proper and timely rational explanation and Cummings in particular has shown no real empathy for the feelings of the many people who have had to endure considerable hardship over the last few weeks. Based mainly on his apparent arrogance surrounding this episode I would conclude that he has become an embarrassment to the government and a distraction from the key messages around stay at home etc and should consider resignation. I recognise however that he may be considered too important to get rid of by Boris and that he may stay regardless, in which case time will tell how that affects this government. It may all fall apart tomorrow or it might be at the next election, we shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-05-27 10:36 PM Birdbrain - 2020-05-27 8:34 PM Never forget Stephen Kinnock and Tahir Ali No, we cant! Will it make you feel better if we condemn their actions as well? Kinnock is a bit of a knob anyway. 12 pages in and still no condemning of the Labour MPs ... Lets remember Dominic Cummings is not an MP , not voted in by anyone , he is a Government Aide ... Its a new day lets see if we can collectively condemn all those at Westminster that have ignored lockdown advice and lets call collectively for all their resignations if they are found to have broke the rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Don636 - 2020-05-28 5:57 AM Woke up early this morning, bored so decided, as you do, to have another look through the Government guidance on “Stay at home: guidance for households with possible or confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) infection” I was particularly interested in the advice around dealing with children in the home and what exceptions existed that might permit someone to travel 260 miles to another home. This document has a number of subsections one of which is entitled “ While you are self-isolating, make sure you do the following things”. The first thing to do is - Stay at home. It is stated that - “Nobody should go out even to buy food or other essentials, and any exercise must be taken within your home. If you require help with buying groceries, other shopping or picking up medication, or walking a dog, you should ask friends or family. Alternatively, you can order your shopping online and medication by phone or online.“ I note here that there is no mention of childcare should both parents become incapacitated. There follows a section on Living with children. It states: “We are aware that not all these measures will be possible if you are living with children, but keep following this guidance to the best of your ability. What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to ensure that all members of your household follow this guidance.” Nothing about needing outside assistance with childcare. There then follows advice on such things as avoiding contact with other members of the family who might be infected, hand washing, dealing with coughs and sneezes, face coverings, disposal of waste, laundry, no social visitors to the home, pets. Again, no advice on the possibility that outside childcare might be needed. There is a section entitled “ Looking after your wellbeing while staying at home”. In this section there is a list of things that you can do including one on - “ planning ahead and thinking about what you will need in order to be able to stay at home for the full duration of isolation” Again, nothing specifically about childcare. What then do you do if both parents become too ill to look after a small child or you are concerned that this might become the case? The guidance seems to leave this entirely at the discretion of the parents but it does advise an element of preplanning is required. The options would appear to be a) do nothing and hope for the best - perhaps not the best plan. b) plan to hand the child over to a friend or relative - possible, bearing in mind that children suffer least risk but still a risk of disease transference to the friend and their family. c) have someone come into your home to stay there and look after the child - possible, although you might not actually be infected and they could be bringing it in to your family or you could pass it to them. It is likely that a need to seek outside assistance with childcare would involve some element of risk but there is probably no way round this. This may involve someone travelling away from their own home to undertake the childcare and the guidance permits travel if it is for the purposes of providing care. It might be difficult bringing someone else into your home if there is no room for them but probably workable. There is, of course, another option and this would be to transport your whole family to someone else’s home, rather than just the child, where childcare could be provided .This would appear to involve more risk as a wider group of people might be infected so this option appears to be worse than bringing an individual into your home. But, what if there was another home location you could go to where there was an individual who could look after the child and also an entirely separate house that your family and the person coming in to look after the child could live in separate from the rest of the family living at that location. This appears to be a practical solution although probably available to few people. It is arguable that travelling to such a second home would be permitted as it was for the purposes of providing care. Such travel would come with some risk of disease transference but this could be mitigated with care. Of course, it would be better if options b) or c) above could be followed as this would likely involve less risk. Having read all this again I have concluded that Dominic Cummings might be correct in saying that what he did was lawful. The difference between him and most other people is that he had an option available to him to move to a second location where childcare could be provide with minimal risk. Could he have found someone more local to carry out childcare - I don’t know. Even if he could would it be acceptable to decide that the best option all round was to drive to Durham - who knows. On balance I would say that he should not be punished for making the decision that he did just because he was in the privileged position of having the option of self isolation in Durham. You could argue that perhaps he could have given more thought to how this move would look to the masses who were suffering some degree of hardship through this crisis and stayed at home. At the very least he could have given a better, more heartfelt explanation at the very earliest. I now turn to the Barnard Castle jaunt. I can see no reason for this trip whatsoever under the guidance. If he was concerned about his eyesight he should simply have remained in Durham until he was sure he was fit to drive, or his wife should have driven. I would say he was due a fine for this trip. Should he resign or be sacked for this? I have gone back and forward on this a few times. Any normal person I would say no. A senior government representative though? For myself, based on my rational analysis I would probably still say no although Barnard Castle bothers me. The problem is that neither Cummings nor the government have provided a proper and timely rational explanation and Cummings in particular has shown no real empathy for the feelings of the many people who have had to endure considerable hardship over the last few weeks. Based mainly on his apparent arrogance surrounding this episode I would conclude that he has become an embarrassment to the government and a distraction from the key messages around stay at home etc and should consider resignation. I recognise however that he may be considered too important to get rid of by Boris and that he may stay regardless, in which case time will tell how that affects this government. It may all fall apart tomorrow or it might be at the next election, we shall see. Good post ... He shouldn't be sacked for caring for his child , any parent that condemns those actions if done for the reasons he says is not a parent ... He should be sacked for his trip out ... Should an MP be sacked for ignoring lockdown rules and going to a funeral with over 100 males ??? Yes of course he should ... Should an MP be sacked for travelling miles to see his isolating parents just because it was his fathers birthday ??? Yes of course he should ... Should the squad treat all 3 the same ??? No , Cummings is not an MP unlike Kinnock and Ali and has not been voted in by anyone but he has let Government down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don636 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Birdbrain - totally agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 A very well thought out post by Don. It is the Barnard Castle trip that is the smoking gun. However what I also find unbelievable is that one of the most powerful men in the country / government (ironically unelected) apparently acted alone. Or did he? It seems somewhat unbelievable that he did this without anyone in government knowing. It is clear that he is Johnsons crutch and he cannot function without him. Are we seriously to believe that the government could not have found a way to assist somebody so high up and important through this crisis? Did nobody know what was going on? He said he never wanted to bother Johnson with it all as he was sick. Fair enough, so you go to the acting PM or no doubt some Mr Fixer for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-05-28 6:22 AM Cummings ...... has not been voted in by anyone True. Which makes the defence of him weaker, not stronger as you seem to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 I think we are falling into Cummings trap by debating the defensible childcare issue, to draw attention away from the indefensible Barnard Castle jolly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Don636 - 2020-05-28 5:57 AM ......There follows a section on Living with children. It states: “We are aware that not all these measures will be possible if you are living with children, but keep following this guidance to the best of your ability. What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to ensure that all members of your household follow this guidance.” .... Nothing about needing outside assistance with childcare. Isn't it obvious that the "We are aware that not all these measures will be possible if you are living with children" bit means that it is acknowledged that there are circumstances in which you might not be able to cope with childcare - so you should then do your best, i.e. exercise some common sense in the way you secure the necessary childcare? Clearly it then becomes a question of judgement how you deal with the conflict (with child care) and didn't Cummings has ackowledged that these questions of judgement would strike people in different ways? Equally clearly driving over 260 miles has struck many people as poor judgement but if you have no child care cover and that's where the cover can be secured, does it really make a difference that it was 260 miles rather than 26 miles when he did the journey immediately in one leg? Likewise the decision to do a 30 mile test drive and to stop and sit by the riverside for a chat among themselves before returning (after the expiry of the 14 days of isolation ended but before driving back to London) can nevertheless be seen by said as an odd way to test your eyesight - but wasn't it a sensible thing to take a short test drive after DC had been bed-bound during his illness? Would you really condemn everyone who acted like this, even members of your family? Or would you reserve your outrage for "priviledged" people like DC? And wasn't there far more risk to other people from the close huddles of journalists and photographers outside DC's London home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-05-28 7:32 AM I think we are falling into Cummings trap by debating the defensible childcare issue, to draw attention away from the indefensible Barnard Castle jolly. Say's the HYPOCRITE who has been evading Lockdown since day 1 *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 StuartO - 2020-05-28 7:32 AM wasn't it a sensible thing to take a short test drive after DC had been bed-bound during his illness? He could have set off home, and either turned back, got his wife to drive, or got help - this episode has shown how far the Government will go to support him. Of course it wouldn't be so newsworthy if an ordinary person had been caught doing the same. They would have been fined, and probably kept their job. But DC is at the top of the Government telling us to stay at home - especially when you have Covid 19 !!!!!!!!!. Can't you see how much more difficult it makes the job for the police, and how much it jeopardises health and the economy when others use Cummings law to do the same as he did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 malc d - 2020-05-27 11:00 PM Barryd999 - 2020-05-27 10:36 PM Birdbrain - 2020-05-27 8:34 PM Never forget Stephen Kinnock and Tahir Ali No, we cant! Will it make you feel better if we condemn their actions as well? Kinnock is a bit of a knob anyway. I didn't realise that Kinnock and Ali were also involved in the government who set down rules for other people, and then ignored them themselves, same as Cummings ! Hypocrites like that should definitely be condemned. :-| So its OK for elected policticians to interperate the rules differently.........but not government employees? ;-) ......... Kinda looks like cockeye excuse merchant lefty logic to me :D .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-05-28 7:48 AM StuartO - 2020-05-28 7:32 AM wasn't it a sensible thing to take a short test drive after DC had been bed-bound during his illness? He could have set off home, and either turned back, got his wife to drive, or got help - this episode has shown how far the Government will go to support him. Of course it wouldn't be so newsworthy if an ordinary person had been caught doing the same. They would have been fined, and probably kept their job. But DC is at the top of the Government telling us to stay at home - especially when you have Covid 19 !!!!!!!!!. Can't you see how much more difficult it makes the job for the police, and how much it jeopardises health and the economy when others use Cummings law to do the same as he did? Say's the forums most infamous HYPOCRITE (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 As clearly stated in the title, This thread is about Dominic Cummings breach of the lockdown We shouldn't fall into the trap of being distracted into changing it to anyone else. Endless arguments over who is better or worse to draw attention away from the indefensible. Other people's alleged breaches should be on separate threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-05-28 7:48 AM StuartO - 2020-05-28 7:32 AM ... wasn't it a sensible thing to take a short test drive after DC had been bed-bound during his illness? ... He could have set off home, and either turned back, got his wife to drive, or got help .... Well he could have done those things, but he chose to take the test drive, perhaps to settle his wife's anxieties. Not unreasonable after coming out of the 14 day isolation when there was less urgency to make the long journey, even though he was keen to get back to his job in what he saw as the national interest? Why are your ideas so much better (or less outrageous) than his? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-05-28 7:57 AM As clearly stated in the title, This thread is about Dominic Cummings breach of the lockdown We shouldn't fall into the trap of being distracted into changing it to anyone else. Endless arguments over who is better or worse to draw attention away from the indefensible. Other people's alleged breaches should be on separate threads. HYPOCRITE >:-) .......... Go have a binbag moment and clear your mind (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 StuartO - 2020-05-28 8:01 AM Why are your ideas so much better (or less outrageous) than his? Here we go again trying to change the subject to someone else (lol) Is that because you realise the Barnard Castle jolly was unnecessary because Cummings could have got back to London without it, to do his 'urgent' work of amending his previous years blog post to include a prediction of Coronovirus *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-05-28 8:05 AM Go have a binbag moment and clear your mind (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ No need - I'm cutting my use of plastic bags to help the environment by getting one of these https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/General-Chat/Chatterbox/Wonder-how-much-this-will-divide-opinion/55278/#M649458 :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-05-28 8:05 AM Go have a binbag moment and clear your mind (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ No need - I'm cutting my use of plastic bags to help the environment by getting one of these https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/General-Chat/Chatterbox/Wonder-how-much-this-will-divide-opinion/55278/#M649458 :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-05-28 8:07 AM StuartO - 2020-05-28 8:01 AM Why are your ideas so much better (or less outrageous) than his? Here we go again trying to change the subject to someone else (lol) Is that because you realise the Barnard Castle jolly was unnecessary because Cummings could have got back to London without it, to do his 'urgent' work of amending his previous years blog post to include a prediction of Coronovirus *-) Here you go again *-) .........Ignoring your own Hypocrisy >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-05-28 8:10 AM pelmetman - 2020-05-28 8:05 AM Go have a binbag moment and clear your mind (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ No need - I'm cutting my use of plastic bags to help the environment by getting one of these https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/General-Chat/Chatterbox/Wonder-how-much-this-will-divide-opinion/55278/#M649458 :D Judging by your output on here ;-) ,........... You'd have no trouble filling it with Bullsh*t >:-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-05-28 7:26 AM Birdbrain - 2020-05-28 6:22 AM Cummings ...... has not been voted in by anyone True. Which makes the defence of him weaker, not stronger as you seem to think. Why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-05-28 7:50 AM malc d - 2020-05-27 11:00 PM Barryd999 - 2020-05-27 10:36 PM Birdbrain - 2020-05-27 8:34 PM Never forget Stephen Kinnock and Tahir Ali No, we cant! Will it make you feel better if we condemn their actions as well? Kinnock is a bit of a knob anyway. I didn't realise that Kinnock and Ali were also involved in the government who set down rules for other people, and then ignored them themselves, same as Cummings ! Hypocrites like that should definitely be condemned. :-| So its OK for elected policticians to interperate the rules differently.........but not government employees? ;-) ......... Kinda looks like cockeye excuse merchant lefty logic to me :D .......... So you think that all the Conservative MPs that are complaining are " lefties " Dave. You do seem a bit obsessed with politics regardless of the subject. Why don't you EVER consider ' right' and 'wrong' - instead of ' right ' and ' left ' ? :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 John52 - 2020-05-28 7:57 AM As clearly stated in the title, This thread is about Dominic Cummings breach of the lockdown We shouldn't fall into the trap of being distracted into changing it to anyone else. Endless arguments over who is better or worse to draw attention away from the indefensible. Other people's alleged breaches should be on separate threads. "We shouldn't fall into the trap of being distracted into changing it to anyone else" ... You mean like you do in threads time after time with Her Unelected Majesty , Jimmy Saville , Jenny Acruri ??? ... Its fine for you to do that ??? ... Stop being a hypocrite and treat all Westminster lockdown law breakers the same ... Hate on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 malc d - 2020-05-28 8:42 AM pelmetman - 2020-05-28 7:50 AM malc d - 2020-05-27 11:00 PM Barryd999 - 2020-05-27 10:36 PM Birdbrain - 2020-05-27 8:34 PM Never forget Stephen Kinnock and Tahir Ali No, we cant! Will it make you feel better if we condemn their actions as well? Kinnock is a bit of a knob anyway. I didn't realise that Kinnock and Ali were also involved in the government who set down rules for other people, and then ignored them themselves, same as Cummings ! Hypocrites like that should definitely be condemned. :-| So its OK for elected policticians to interperate the rules differently.........but not government employees? ;-) ......... Kinda looks like cockeye excuse merchant lefty logic to me :D .......... So you think that all the Conservative MPs that are complaining are " lefties " Dave. You do seem a bit obsessed with politics regardless of the subject. Why don't you EVER consider ' right' and 'wrong' - instead of ' right ' and ' left ' ? :-| Because 'right' and 'left' dictate what most believe to be 'right' and 'wrong' like it or not as this thread shows quite nicely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 malc d - 2020-05-28 8:42 AM pelmetman - 2020-05-28 7:50 AM malc d - 2020-05-27 11:00 PM Barryd999 - 2020-05-27 10:36 PM Birdbrain - 2020-05-27 8:34 PM Never forget Stephen Kinnock and Tahir Ali No, we cant! Will it make you feel better if we condemn their actions as well? Kinnock is a bit of a knob anyway. I didn't realise that Kinnock and Ali were also involved in the government who set down rules for other people, and then ignored them themselves, same as Cummings ! Hypocrites like that should definitely be condemned. :-| So its OK for elected policticians to interperate the rules differently.........but not government employees? ;-) ......... Kinda looks like cockeye excuse merchant lefty logic to me :D .......... So you think that all the Conservative MPs that are complaining are " lefties " Dave. You do seem a bit obsessed with politics regardless of the subject. Why don't you EVER consider ' right' and 'wrong' - instead of ' right ' and ' left ' ? :-| I do....... After I discovered that some people on the Left and Right cant accept a democratic vote *-) .......... I consider I'm Right.......and they're Wrong :D ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.