So, whadda we gonna moan abart?

[moonay]

Key word there Moonay, interpretation..

I agree.

4 year olds are vulnerable given their age. Full stop. He was travelling to access care when both parents were ill and may have been unable to provide it - not because the child may have got covid..

Here, I disagree. 4yr olds aren't in themselves vulnerable to Covid, (and I didn't imply that he might have caught it). Neither are they vulnerable simply because of their age. However, they may become vulnerable should their parent(s)/carer(s) become unable to look after them. At the time of travelling, (as far as we know) Cummings was fine ...... his child wasn't vulnerable.

In regards the anpr I’ll grant that in addition to this witness then this is corroboration. How its been obtained however is another very important point. Is this private anpr or official? Who has accessed it and for what purpose? If official, there's no police, security services or other permitted agency investigation so no reasonable excuse to access it, so someone somewhere is breaking the law and breaching data protection rules by doing so and then leaking it. Someone will be in the shit having committed criminal offences if this is the case. If private, then the owner - a parking company for example, will also have likely breached data protection regs by failing to secure the information it gathers..

Breaching data protection? ........... I'd love to see Cummings try and use that as a defence, given his track record.

I'm sure that anyone who operates such systems are fully aware of the law............ and even if it was obtained/released illegally, it hardly exonerates Cummings.

Was travelling 30 miles for exercise permitted at that time? If not and in the absence of any other reasonable excuse, assuming DC was with the vehicle, then he will also be in the shit and the PM will need to reassess his decision or level of sanction in the light of this information. It’s all about facts and evidence Moonay, not jumping to conclusions and making knee jerk decisions in the absence of them because a baying mob want you too.

Apparently, it was his wife's birthday. I fully agree it's all about facts and evidence ......which is exactly why I'd have been far more supportive of Cummings if he'd have come out and explained everything that he did - including dates, stops, etc - at the outset. But, he didn't.

Re the ANPR, I admit to being a little premature here. I saw something saying that that he'd been captured, but I admit that the source wasn't one I'd normally assign full trust to. I have seen though that the number reported by the witness ifs "a car into which Cummings has previously got into". I suspect we'll find out fairly soon.

 

[moonay]

What he’s saying is the country is full of pathetic fuckwits who’ll act like children if they don’t get their own way..

Maybe .......... but knowing that, the PM (and Cummings) still have a responsibility to show leadership and example.

Childcare was/is his defence. You may not agree but the law says the journey for this situation, in this circumstance was allowed.

Interpretation. Precautionary, not essential ..........and though you slated me for using "hindsight", the fact that childcare was never actually required, that surely undermines Cummings' case.

 

[hindleymonwafc]

I fear for the safety of all the old people who may have been sentenced to death via a second wave through the chain reaction of Mr Cummings’ actions.

But then again, since when have these dictators ever given a shit about the old people during this pandemic?

That's not what you said though...you stated you would deliberately break the lockdown out of almost spite, thus putting you, your family and all those old people you claim to care about at risk. It doesn't make sense.

I will not be putting mine at risk.

 

[moonay]

Her "treatment" of Saint Greta (I thought it was Will Grigg who was on fire btw ).
consisted of calling out her parents and others in the "climate change police" who think it's fine to manipulate a troubled child - and quite right too.
On immigration spot on as well IMO - if you are arriving in the country to add value in an profession needed by the country you are welcome otherwise you are not.
A mirror of what Australia gets roundly applauded for !

But only if you're going to earn over (I think about) £26k ?

 

[Made in Wigan]

ere, I disagree. 4yr olds aren't in themselves vulnerable to Covid, (and I didn't imply that he might have caught it). Neither are they vulnerable simply because of their age. However, they may become vulnerable should their parent(s)/carer(s) become unable to look after them. At the time of travelling, (as far as we know) Cummings was fine ...... his child wasn't vulnerable.

You’re wrong, 4 year olds are vulnerable by virtue of age. No ifs buts or maybes. Government stipulates so and has for sometime, nothing covid related in that. He was highly likely to get it so took reasonable measures within the law to safeguard his child.

Breaching data protection? ........... I'd love to see Cummings try and use that as a defence, given his track record.

I'm sure that anyone who operates such systems are fully aware of the law............ and even if it was obtained/released illegally, it hardly exonerates Cummings.

I’m not suggesting it exonerates or provides him a defence, just stating someone or an organisation will be in the shit for accessing and then releasing the info. He could receive a settlement of that if he so chooses, let alone the sanctions against the company.

Apparently, it was his wife's birthday. I fully agree it's all about facts and evidence ......which is exactly why I'd have been far more supportive of Cummings if he'd have come out and explained everything that he did - including dates, stops, etc - at the outset. But, he didn't.

Re the ANPR, I admit to being a little premature here. I saw something saying that that he'd been captured, but I admit that the source wasn't one I'd normally assign full trust to. I have seen though that the number reported by the witness ifs "a car into which Cummings has previously got into". I suspect we'll find out fairly soon.

Well an explanation was provided for his reasons to travel. It’s that you and others don’t accept it.

Now he may not have been on anpr? See it’s just reinforcing what I’m saying, gather the evidence, establish facts and then make a decision.

As for being premature, it’s becoming a thing

 

[daleks.at.the.monaco]

Knowing that you’re now keen on facts, here’s something for you to peruse. Even Moonay may want a butchers

SI 350 Regulation 6 para (2)(b) – “a reasonable excuse includes the need—to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person [Cummins’ son], or to provide emergency assistance”. The problem is Dalek/Moonay that few read the law.

There is a difference between guidance and law and guidance can be ignored because it isn’t law. The guidance has always been more restrictive that the law which provides for an infinite number of reasons to travel anywhere and 15 major categories of typical ‘excuses’. It suits the government to issue more restrictive guidance because it meets their agenda and is easier to communicate. The law for example does not recognise social distancing and the 2m 'rule' which cannot be enforced.

Now Cummings didn’t break the law when he attended Durham. If he went on this jaunt to this castle he may well have done and if he’d returned to Durham or any other place he’s rumoured to have been sighted without good reason. Once some evidence has been provided and the facts of the case established then these can be examined by the PM and a decision reached on the sanction. Until that time, as it stands, he has not broken the law, nor is there compelling evidence to suggest he has. However I will gladly reassess my view if and when there is some.

Absolutely nothing for ewe to worry about, then

 

[Made in Wigan]

Maybe .......... but knowing that, the PM (and Cummings) still have a responsibility to show leadership and example.

I agree, but he was acting within the confines of the law to protect his child so I see no issue.

Interpretation. Precautionary, not essential ..........and though you slated me for using "hindsight", the fact that childcare was never actually required, that surely undermines Cummings' case.

It doesn’t undermine it - the reasons are still valid. His wife was ill, he would likely get ill (and did) so entirely sensible to act when he did.

 

[moonay]

You’re wrong, 4 year olds are vulnerable by virtue of age. No ifs buts or maybes. Government stipulates so and has for sometime, nothing covid related in that. He was highly likely to get it so took reasonable measures within the law to safeguard his child.

A 4yo, who is themself, healthy, with healthy parents, in a safe house, is not inherently "vulnerable" in the context of Covid. .

I’m not suggesting it exonerates or provides him a defence, just stating someone or an organisation will be in the shit for accessing and then releasing the info. He could receive a settlement of that if he so chooses, let alone the sanctions against the company.

Yep. Maybe.

Well an explanation was provided for his reasons to travel. It’s that you and others don’t accept it.

Explanation? Incomplete and lacking detail, but go on then, I suppose so.

Now he may not have been on anpr? See it’s just reinforcing what I’m saying, gather the evidence, establish facts and then make a decision.

Don't worry ......... it'll be confirmed sooner or later.

As for being premature, it’s becoming a thing

How very dare you !

 

[Hampton]

But only if you're going to earn over (I think about) £26k ?

True but there are (and no doubt will be more) dispensations allowed for less than this if the countries need is such.
I could start banging on about workshy brits at this point but will leave that debate for another time (and it looks like you have yr hands full with MiW ATM )

 

[moonay]

I agree, but he was acting within the confines of the law to protect his child so I see no issue..

But when the impact of that is that the public start to "not follow" your guidance, and as a result, everyone becomes less safe, that's a hell of a burden to bear.

It doesn’t undermine it - the reasons are still valid. His wife was ill, he would likely get ill (and did) so entirely sensible to act when he did.

Opinion. Not essential......precautionary.

 

[moonay]

True but there are (and no doubt will be more) dispensations allowed for less than this if the countries need is such.
I could start banging on about workshy brits at this point but will leave that debate for another time (and it looks like you have yr hands full with MiW ATM )

You'll get no argument from me on the workshy Brits.

As for MiW ......... no problem.

 

[hindleymonwafc]

How does anybody keep their interest up for so long like you 2. I can't so I'm out.

 

[moonay]

How does anybody keep their interest up for so long like you 2. I can't so I'm out.

You veggies just don't have the stamina.

Bacon and black pudding for breakfast.

 

[Made in Wigan]

4yo, who is themself, healthy, with healthy parents, in a safe house, is not inherently "vulnerable" in the context of Covid. .

Well the parents weren’t healthy, but regardless legislation doesn’t say vulnerable in the context of covid.

xplanation? Incomplete and lacking detail, but go on then, I suppose so.

He’s not being investigated for murder or any crime for that matter. He gave an explanation, no reason to go into the intricate details of the journey.

Don't worry ......... it'll be confirmed sooner or later

I’ve little doubt. But it reinforced my point, don’t believe everything you read on twitter!

How very dare you !

Just think of Corbyn banging Abbott, I understand it works everytime

 

[daleks.at.the.monaco]

Well the parents weren’t healthy, but regardless legislation doesn’t say vulnerable in the context of covid.



He’s not being investigated for murder or any crime for that matter. He gave an explanation, no reason to go into the intricate details of the journey.



I’ve little doubt. But it reinforced my point, don’t believe everything you read on twitter!



Just think of Corbyn banging Abbott, I understand it works everytime

You should know your place
Johnson told us today that nobody is as good a father as Cummings.
Hang your head in shame next to the rest of us

 

[Made in Wigan]

ut when the impact of that is that the public start to "not follow" your guidance, and as a result, everyone becomes less safe, that's a hell of a burden to bear.

Burden perhaps, but how do you balance doing something lawful to protect your child with the fact others may not be happy about it so break the law themselves and put others at risk?

?

Opinion. Not essential......precautionary.

An informed and reasonable decision having access to discussion and information over the impact of the disease.

 

[Made in Wigan]

You veggies just don't have the stamina.

Bacon and black pudding for breakfast.

Black pudding? Couldn’t think of owt worse.

 

[moonay]

Well the parents weren’t healthy, but regardless legislation doesn’t say vulnerable in the context of covid.

One was healthy ....when they travelled.

In that legislation you quoted, a 4yo kid doesn't class as vulnerable.

He’s not being investigated for murder or any crime for that matter. He gave an explanation, no reason to go into the intricate details of the journey.

If he wants to show that he took precautions that he didn't endanger anyone else on his journey, and isolated for the appropriate time, why wouldn't he share the details?........especially given all the hoo-hah .

I’ve little doubt. But it reinforced my point, don’t believe everything you read on twitter!

Don't worry, I don't. I don't believe everything I read on here either.

Just think of Corbyn banging Abbott, I understand it works everytime

..........

 

[moonay]

Burden perhaps, but how do you balance doing something lawful to protect your child with the fact others may not be happy about it so break the law themselves and put others at risk?
?
An informed and reasonable decision having access to discussion and information over the impact of the disease.

We're never going to agree .......... I've no problem with that.

 

[moonay]

Black pudding? Couldn’t think of owt worse.

Wonderful stuff ............................ so long as you forget what it is !