" is also demonstrably bad parenting with no regard for the child's safety."

Since when did you have the right to make such a comment without knowing the full details? As in, how ill had they been, how scared were they that their 4-year old would not be cared for if they stayed in London?

I would say that, had I been in Cummings position, I would have done the same thing.

My children's mother drove them to Copenhagen just over a week ago. I was very concerned by this, but I did understand why. Round trip of over 2000 km.

It's easy to judge people, especially those with whom you have political disagreements. People are human beings.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that someone who thinks they are fit enough to drive 260 miles does not think they are too unwell to arrange childcare. We all know what he should have done.

We do. Given that Dom is meant to be some kind of PR wizard and he has had weeks to come with his justification, his account was remarkably so full of holes you could drive a coach and horses through it.

He claims that he could not find childcare locally, but his niece in Durham had volunteered. Given that the advice was that anyone with symptoms should isolate at home, the appropriate choice would surely have been for the niece to travel south rather than three people to go north?

That's just one inconsistency amongst many.

M Courtney, both parents were ill, and were worried about infecting the child, whether at home with him in London, in a car, or in the cottage in Durham. They drove north because there was a 17 year old niece close by and willing to help. Child was probably safer in the car with the air-con working than in a house with them.

I'm not callous or partisan. That is projection. I'm using common sense.

More and more are realising that a total lockdown was a mistake:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/25/the-public-must-lead-us-out-of-the-lockdown/

More data that indicate that this has been an over-reaction:

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/cdc-confirms-remarkably-low-death-rate-media-chooses-ignore-covid-19-realities

More perspective:

https://lockdownsceptics.org/

Glad I'm not in the outrage mob with Clarke and Courtney.

M Courtney, both parents were ill, and were worried about infecting the child, whether at home with him in London, in a car, or in the cottage in Durham.

Not correct. Dom did not fall ill until after they arrived. His story is disintegrating fast. For example he claimed Last year I wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning. , which is a lie. He did write a piece about pandemics last year but not coronaviruses. The Wayback machine shows he edited the piece after he returned from Durham to insert a section on coronaviruses. A small detail but it shows his relationship with the truth is a distant one when it suits.

Glad I am not one of those apologising for a dangerous, lying hypocrite.

"Glad I am not one of those apologising for a dangerous, lying hypocrite.
May 26, 2020 at 3:15 PM Phil Clarke"

You have never apologised for Climate Scientists because you are a dangerous lying hypocrite.

None of this follows an Act of Parliament following proper debate in the House. Same as the "Net Zero" crap.

I think that Cummings is guilty of having a wealthy father with an empty cottage on his estate. And of having two young nieces nearby who could step in.

Expected from stool Clarke. Thought better of Courtney.

Still, I am bored to tears of the whole media frenzy. Really helpful and uplifting to see Sky News doorstepping his parents today.

Ah, the smell of blood.

Meanwhile in Canada

https://globalnews.ca/news/6986338/military-teams-raise-concerns-about-conditions-at-ontario-care-homes/

Mercedes Stephenson
@MercedesGlobal
If you're wondering why troops became whistle blowers... they were deeply concerned nothing was going to be done about the conditions they were reporting. They didn't understand why the federal govt had not moved given the May 14th letter.
2:41 PM · May 26, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1265352440121040896

"It condemns the child to certain infection"

Bullshit! As is the rest of your rant.

"I Stayed Home. I Protected the NHS. I Saved Lives"

None of this follows an Act of Parliament following proper debate in the House.

The relevant Act is the  Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as modified by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, a Statutory Instrument which became law on the day before Cummings fled the capital. It is inconceivable that a man in his position was unaware of this law.

I think that Cummings is guilty of having a wealthy father with an empty cottage on his estate. And of having two young nieces nearby who could step in.

I think Cummings has a prima facie case to answer on provision 6 of the regulations:

during the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse

Hint: one member of the household being ill does not constitute a reasonable excuse, nor does a 60 minute 'test drive' to visit a castle, in fact that could conceivably incur a £1000 fine from the DVLA.

Several scientists on the  behavioural science subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) are already voicing their dismay.

We know that there is understandable public anger over the Dominic Cummings incident and Boris Johnson’s defence of it, and that this anger is the basis of some people now rejecting the guidance on staying at home.

The starting point for the sacrifices people made was the assumption that we all have to make the same sacrifices. So to perceive that those in power, who supposedly embody the lockdown strategy, are not doing so is toxic.

 - Prof John Drury

What is absolutely undeniable is that the unity, the sense that we were all pulling together for the common good, has been broken. They have driven a wedge between themselves and at least a proportion of the public who feel alienated and feel there’s one law for us and another for them.

If people are acting out of individual interest, you can have huge difficulties in securing adherence to the advice, because for quite a lot of people, the risks for going out are relatively low. If you’re young, if you’re healthy, there aren’t that many risks. So you might say: well, I’m thinking about myself, I might as well go out. It’s no problem for me.”

The thing that really concerns me is that Cummings’ defence compounds the problem, because the problem is a lack of an understanding of the importance of thinking and acting in terms of the communal good. It shows that they don’t even understand what the problem is.

Going forward, our ability to deal with the pandemic depends upon adherence and compliance as much as ever. That needs to be understood. it’s important that people understand that we’re still in the middle of this pandemic. The situation is as dangerous as ever and if we stop being vigilant we are in danger.

- Prof Stephen Reicher

The actions of Cummings, and of Johnson and other cabinet ministers subsequently, have been perceived by the UK public to show that there is one rule for those close to the government and another for the rest of us – i.e., a lack of fairness and equity. This is extremely damaging, as collective solidarity is very important for maintaining trust.

- Prof Susan Michie

It is hard to see, after this, how the Government can claim to be 'guided by the science' when their own advisors are so condemnatory of Cummings behaviour and Johnson's protection of his aide.

PS Anyone else enjoying the irony of Boris Johnson invoking the paternal instinct?

 I think he followed the instincts of every father and every parent

Given that Bojo seems unable to tell us how many children he has and who is bringing them up. ;-)

"It condemns the child to certain infection"

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of "It".

"I Stayed Home. I Protected the NHS. I Saved Lives"

No, you didn't save lives. You prolonged the lockdown.

Apology for the profanity.

Meanwhile, in the real world.
The child needed a hospital because he was infected with Covid19.

Read the transcript. The child was hospitalised but tested negative for Covid 19.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-cummings-statement-speech-transcript-durham-full-text-read-lockdown-a9531856.html

Clarke = lame.

Courtney = hysterical.

"Hint: one member of the household being ill does not constitute a reasonable excuse, nor does a 60 minute 'test drive' to visit a castle, in fact that could conceivably incur a £1000 fine from the DVLA."

£1,000. For what?

Symptoms for Covid-19? A range, including no cough and no fever. No reliable tests, either. But Clarke and Courtney "know".

My children will be driving through Germany tomorrow. They will be nowhere near Stasi Clarke, nor Stasi Courtney.

FO you rancid little pair.

You could be fined up to £1,000 if you do not tell DVLA about a condition that might affect your ability to drive safely. You could also be prosecuted if you have an accident.

https://www.gov.uk/driving-medical-conditions

I do not believe for a moment that the Barnard Castle day out was to test his fitness to drive, I mean c'mon.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2020/05/23/56b74/1

A temporary eye condition is not a reason to inform the DVLA and he didn't have an accident. I don't think he should have driven to Barnard Castle at all but then I wouldn't have rushed back to work either. Government has lacked people with completer finisher mentalities. That's why everyone is scared of him and determined to get rid of him.

If I'd been in the same situation - baying mob outside (the press were claiming Cummings had prevented lock down and was prepared to let loads of people die), sick wife, sick best friends (Boris and whatsername), frosty neighbours (most likely remoaners who resent the baying mob), high likelihood I'd come down with the disease, leaving two sick parents looking after a 4 year old - I'd have moved much closer to a support network I could trust. Unlike the early reports, he didn't put his elderly parents at risk. He didn't put his sister or nieces at risk, although they were on hand if necessary. He didn't need to risk going out to shop - for quite some time it was impossible to get a home delivery.

Not playing the disability card but the guy is quite clearly on the autism spectrum. High functioning but people like that don't think logically when it comes to how things 'look'.

In addition, he was already ill when he made the initial plans, he was recovering from a disease that is known to affect the brain and his uncle had died. So in light of all those things, are we surprised he made stupid decisions?

Tiny. Mostly agreement to all that (8.02am) but his problem is that long after the events (when supposedly he is fully recovered) he fails to realise he technically and deliberately broke the law several times or still fails to acknowledge this and offer apologies for his actions. If he had done this, much of the media frenzy would have been dissipated and he would have generated more sympathy of the type you are expressing. Instead he invents (IMO) ridiculous untruths to explain away a 60 mile jaunt to please his family on his wife's birthday. Does he have much credibility left? Can Boris afford to squander even more political capital?

AK I agree with your points too but it's the autism in him. They spend their life being the odd ball and being bullied because of it. Saying sorry is easy for politicians (although they rarely do) but almost impossible for people like Cummings. The most sinister people will look you in the eye and say sorry even though they don't mean it because people set great store by displays of humility.

I think he will be made to resign but it will be to the country's detriment because we need his sort of drive. People who never do anything never get into trouble.

 So in light of all those things, are we surprised he made stupid decisions?

We've all heard the excuses, we can all see the gaping holes in the story. So where is the apology? Where is the 'Don't do as I did'? Nada, just the classic sorry (not sorry) formula of 'Reasonable people may disagree'. Pah.

The issue is not so much about the wisdom or not of his actions, it is more about the example he set, the strong impression of a double standard, the arrogance and the lack of a scintilla of regret or remorse. There's already anecdotal evidence from the police of people breaking lockdown and invoking 'The Cummings Defence', which if true, will ultimately costs lives.

"There's already anecdotal evidence from the police of people breaking lockdown and invoking 'The Cummings Defence', which if true, will ultimately costs lives."

Of course there are and certain people will use any excuse for a day at the beach, especially if the media dig them out and wave them gleefully for the public to see. Ultimately it will be the public who will suffer, even if it's that the rest of the World refuse to accept UK tourists if cases don't continue to fall.

The media acts like lockdown was for the Tories benefit. It was for everyone.

I've said, it's time furlough ended. Before long, those who are invoking 'The Cummings Defence won't be able to afford to swan off to Barnard Castle, let alone anything more exotic.

Summed up in twenty seconds.

A police officer had reported that members of the public were using Cummings’ alleged breach of lockdown rules as a reason to follow suit.

The officer, who said he worked in London and gave his name as Scott, told LBC radio that he found enforcing the law more difficult now. When he asked growing numbers of lockdown flouters why they were refusing to observe the UK restrictions, they told him it was because “lockdown was over” and if Cummings “can do what he wants [then] we should be able to too”, the officer said, adding: “As a police officer, I don’t know what to respond back to them.”

Great Job!

May 27, 2020 at 9:21 AM Phil Clarke
Your credibility, and that of Climate Science depends on Cook's fabricated 97% Consensus?