The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Just So We Clear, D C Should Have Sacfrificed His Kid, Is That What The Left Journos Are Saying?
156 Answers
Can someone explain what he should have done?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Is it just the 'left journos' though, TTT. At least 19 (last I heard) Tory MPs have called for his resignation. And, as I have said on here, I take 2 newspapers, The Mirror and The Express, and in Sunday's Express that dyed-in-the-wool Tory, Nick Ferrari, also called for his head. Can't blame everything on the left. Though you try often enough.
Neither he nor his children were in any peril, Tora. And even if they were, the solution would not be to drive them half the length of the country to place them with over grandparents in their 70s. Countless thousands of people have found themselves with childcare problems for all sorts of reasons over the past couple of months. Most of them respected the lockdown and if they did have to travel, they kept it to a minimum. DC has relatives in London and not only that I'm sure that someone in his position need only to have picked up a phone to get help. The more I read of his shenanigans the more I believe he simply upped sticks to Durham when the virus spread in London looked a bit dodgy and has been undertaking unnecessary journeys, some of considerable length, since then. Obviously in his mind would have been, in the event of being challenged "Do you know who I am? Ring this number to get through to the PM's office and see what they have to tell you."
I don't agree with the government's lockdown strategy but I have abided by it. DC has trashed what little credibility it had.
I don't agree with the government's lockdown strategy but I have abided by it. DC has trashed what little credibility it had.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Woof. We were constantly told that Cummings wanted his child to be looked after by his parents, in their 70s, if he and his wife couldn't.
I have looked again to find evidence of what you posted but can't.
The sister and niece have only just appeared on the look after the child scene.
Can you show me where your evidence that his parents were not to become the child's carers comes from...because it really contradicts what we were told by sources close to Cummings when this broke..thanks. G
I have looked again to find evidence of what you posted but can't.
The sister and niece have only just appeared on the look after the child scene.
Can you show me where your evidence that his parents were not to become the child's carers comes from...because it really contradicts what we were told by sources close to Cummings when this broke..thanks. G
//NJ they weren't placed with the grandparents, it was never the plan to place them with grandparents.//
He said, on 23rd May that he went to Durham with his partner (who he now says also had coronavirus symptoms) in order to make sure that his child had childcare in case he fell ill as well. This was the first time he had mentioned childcare. I don’t know if he has any other friends or relatives in that neck of the woods but whoever was to take the children in the event of his incapacitation would have been taking in a child who had been in touch with one if not both parents presenting with symptoms and with one parent who had been in close contact with somebody who contracted it and almost died.
One of the reasons initially given for keeping car journeys to a minimum was the risk of having an accident and having to call on the emergency services and also the risk of spread when filling with fuel. He says he did not stop en route. That may be true; there are plenty of cars that can manage 270 miles on a tank. But he also returned as well as taking a 30 mile trip to Barnard Castle to “test his eyesight” for driving. There are not too many cars that can comfortably manage 600 miles, assuming he was full when he left.
His press conference was riddled with waffle and bluster:
“The rules made clear that if you are dealing with small children then that can be exceptional circumstances.”
In fact they say no such thing. Firstly they don’t mention “exceptional circumstances” at all. In the non-exhaustive list of “reasonable excuses” for leaving home, the only time that children are mentioned is to access formal childcare facilities or to take the child to another parent or guardian who has joint access arrangements. Neither of these applied to Mr Cummings.
If this matter had been before a Magistrates’ Court it would fall to Mr Cummings to persuade the Bench that his journeys amounted to a “reasonable excuse” for leaving his home. He had plenty of more reasonable alternatives (which is one of the tests for a court to determine what is reasonable) – far more than most people, in fact and I would suggest he would struggle. But more than that, as among the architects of the lockdown he should have been well aware of its purpose – to keep people at home as far as is reasonably practical. He’s destroyed the integrity of the lockdown by doing something he simply didn’t have to do. I fear that if Bojo continues with his support the writing may be on the wall for him and that would be a tragedy.
He said, on 23rd May that he went to Durham with his partner (who he now says also had coronavirus symptoms) in order to make sure that his child had childcare in case he fell ill as well. This was the first time he had mentioned childcare. I don’t know if he has any other friends or relatives in that neck of the woods but whoever was to take the children in the event of his incapacitation would have been taking in a child who had been in touch with one if not both parents presenting with symptoms and with one parent who had been in close contact with somebody who contracted it and almost died.
One of the reasons initially given for keeping car journeys to a minimum was the risk of having an accident and having to call on the emergency services and also the risk of spread when filling with fuel. He says he did not stop en route. That may be true; there are plenty of cars that can manage 270 miles on a tank. But he also returned as well as taking a 30 mile trip to Barnard Castle to “test his eyesight” for driving. There are not too many cars that can comfortably manage 600 miles, assuming he was full when he left.
His press conference was riddled with waffle and bluster:
“The rules made clear that if you are dealing with small children then that can be exceptional circumstances.”
In fact they say no such thing. Firstly they don’t mention “exceptional circumstances” at all. In the non-exhaustive list of “reasonable excuses” for leaving home, the only time that children are mentioned is to access formal childcare facilities or to take the child to another parent or guardian who has joint access arrangements. Neither of these applied to Mr Cummings.
If this matter had been before a Magistrates’ Court it would fall to Mr Cummings to persuade the Bench that his journeys amounted to a “reasonable excuse” for leaving his home. He had plenty of more reasonable alternatives (which is one of the tests for a court to determine what is reasonable) – far more than most people, in fact and I would suggest he would struggle. But more than that, as among the architects of the lockdown he should have been well aware of its purpose – to keep people at home as far as is reasonably practical. He’s destroyed the integrity of the lockdown by doing something he simply didn’t have to do. I fear that if Bojo continues with his support the writing may be on the wall for him and that would be a tragedy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.