ChatterBank19 mins ago
I'll Just Leave This Here
245 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Let's just unpick this shall we?
1. You are a wealthy, well-connected couple and must already have well established childcare arrangements in place to allow the two of you to do your important jobs.
2. You have both contracted a virus which is highly infectious and particularly dangerous to elderly people.
3. One of you is part of a Government team which has issued instructions that people with the virus must self-isolate and not travel for any reason at all.
4. You are worried that you might both become so ill that you cannot care for your child.
Do you :
A. Ramp up your existing arrangements (either paid or from friends) to provide back-up care for your child - remember that money is pretty much no object for this couple.
B. Drive 260 miles (5 hours?) whilst in a highly infectious state - possibly needing to stop for fuel/coffee on the way - then deliver yourselves and your child (and the virus) into the home of an elderly couple - putting them and their other contacts at risk of infection and death?
I would suggest that it takes a particular sort of 'me me me' mindset to even think that option (B) is acceptable - the level of arrogance to then actually implement (B) defies belief.
Cummings position is surely untenable - the only interesting question is whether he checked with Raab/Gove/Whoever before his journey - if so they may have to go too.
1. You are a wealthy, well-connected couple and must already have well established childcare arrangements in place to allow the two of you to do your important jobs.
2. You have both contracted a virus which is highly infectious and particularly dangerous to elderly people.
3. One of you is part of a Government team which has issued instructions that people with the virus must self-isolate and not travel for any reason at all.
4. You are worried that you might both become so ill that you cannot care for your child.
Do you :
A. Ramp up your existing arrangements (either paid or from friends) to provide back-up care for your child - remember that money is pretty much no object for this couple.
B. Drive 260 miles (5 hours?) whilst in a highly infectious state - possibly needing to stop for fuel/coffee on the way - then deliver yourselves and your child (and the virus) into the home of an elderly couple - putting them and their other contacts at risk of infection and death?
I would suggest that it takes a particular sort of 'me me me' mindset to even think that option (B) is acceptable - the level of arrogance to then actually implement (B) defies belief.
Cummings position is surely untenable - the only interesting question is whether he checked with Raab/Gove/Whoever before his journey - if so they may have to go too.
// Because he had symptoms to indicate he'd been infected and therefore was likely to become ill.// someone else
parents frequently nurse their own children - ( unsourced possibly invalid opinion)
sarah duchess of marlborough nursed her son froo until death when he got small pox at Oxford ( tenderly done by Susan Hampshire in the series 1969 ) because no one else would go near him
and here we have princess alice g daughter of Victoria, dying from diphtheria caught from one of the kids - whole family got it
https:/
whereas in the outbreak of diphtheria in a POW camp on crete in 1942, it was the proud boast of the MO in charge that he had not one death. ( one of my late fathers colleagues)
BUT Prince George was deported to Livadia 1900, site 40 y later of the Betrayal of Yalta ( its in Yalta) because he had TB and the russian royal family ( and rasputin I should think) was afraid he would give it to everyone else.
sorry just trying to liven up an otherwise sagging thread, Doug
parents frequently nurse their own children - ( unsourced possibly invalid opinion)
sarah duchess of marlborough nursed her son froo until death when he got small pox at Oxford ( tenderly done by Susan Hampshire in the series 1969 ) because no one else would go near him
and here we have princess alice g daughter of Victoria, dying from diphtheria caught from one of the kids - whole family got it
https:/
whereas in the outbreak of diphtheria in a POW camp on crete in 1942, it was the proud boast of the MO in charge that he had not one death. ( one of my late fathers colleagues)
BUT Prince George was deported to Livadia 1900, site 40 y later of the Betrayal of Yalta ( its in Yalta) because he had TB and the russian royal family ( and rasputin I should think) was afraid he would give it to everyone else.
sorry just trying to liven up an otherwise sagging thread, Doug
If you're going against your own advice then either you are wrong or the advice you gave is wrong. In both cases you are wrong. There's no way for Cummings to win here. I can sort of see the point Naomi's making but he still ends up having made a serious mistake and a serious error of judgement. "I would have made the same error of judgement in his position" is no defence, either.
As to whether or not Cummings should be sacked for this: I'm not sure. I have my own reasons (obviously) for wanting him out, but perhaps in this case it would be better and more honest to make an apology. The fact that Downing Street has defended him beggars belief: people have been fined for shorter journeys, and defending it and claiming this was "essential" only serves to feed the "one rule for us and another for them" mentality. Apologise and be done with it.
Jim, I don’t believe it is an ‘error of judgement’. The advice was good - but it can only possibly apply to normal circumstances. I wonder how many here have broken the guidelines in an emergency? Anyone? My husband did. He went on a mercy mission to fix a broken pipe for someone who had water pouring out all over the floor. Should he have left the single mother to deal with it? How would she do that? I think not. Rules are fine - essential even - but when needs must they sometimes have to be broken. To demand otherwise is unworkable - and irrational.
Naomi - I can just about see a possible need to deliver his child to a safe place for care.
It beggars belief that the nearest safe place was 260 miles away, but if we do accept that - then surely a man with his money and contacts could have got a private (government?) vehicle to deliver the child to the grandparents, whilst Cummings and Wakefield remained isolated (as the law required)?
You are defending the indefensible and trying to do so by a spurious tugging at heartstrings over 'family trumps everything' - it does you no credit at all.
It beggars belief that the nearest safe place was 260 miles away, but if we do accept that - then surely a man with his money and contacts could have got a private (government?) vehicle to deliver the child to the grandparents, whilst Cummings and Wakefield remained isolated (as the law required)?
You are defending the indefensible and trying to do so by a spurious tugging at heartstrings over 'family trumps everything' - it does you no credit at all.
It then also depends on your definition of "emergency". A five-hour+ cross-country trip stretches the definition of "emergency" to breaking point.
No, it isn't defensible, and it is sad to see people defending it. What is more, though, there's no sense in trying and I expect that if politicians and officials admitted flaws and mistakes more often the public would be more forgiving. All that is needed here is to admit that Cummings did something that he shouldn't have. There is clearly some sense at which the outrage at this is, for want of a better word, "convenient" -- Cummings is a divisive figure* -- and the way to defuse that is to own the mistake rather than to deny it.
*understatement.
No, it isn't defensible, and it is sad to see people defending it. What is more, though, there's no sense in trying and I expect that if politicians and officials admitted flaws and mistakes more often the public would be more forgiving. All that is needed here is to admit that Cummings did something that he shouldn't have. There is clearly some sense at which the outrage at this is, for want of a better word, "convenient" -- Cummings is a divisive figure* -- and the way to defuse that is to own the mistake rather than to deny it.
*understatement.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles107 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles236 mins ago
Crosswords255 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles286 mins ago
