Lockdown diary, day 64
Another beautiful day in Whitehaven and it looks like I may need to conclude or rename this series of diary posts soon.
Let's just hope we can get the economy going again without increasing the danger from COVID-19
The track and trace which launched today (fantastic news) should help with that.
Keep well
Let's just hope we can get the economy going again without increasing the danger from COVID-19
The track and trace which launched today (fantastic news) should help with that.
Keep well
Comments
Test, Quarantine, track/trace.
basically you test someone, you quarantine them, once they have tested negative you let them out of quarantine (if that seems too harsh, which it may be you could test and then quarantine when they test +ve) then you track/trace people who they have been in contact with and test them then repeat.
At the moment the track and trace is being sold as "if you get a phone call its your civic duty to isolate"
Cant ignore the Elephant any longer, there are many who wont answer or if they do will say "its ok Dominic said it does not apply to me". but Boris intends to draw a line under the matter, which is ok its just the public wont.
Test, track, quarantine should have been the method used all along, it was abandoned at a critical stage. Isolation wards could be used but that seems to have been abandoned in favour of self isolation at home.
Its a small step forward, but, im not sold on it yet.
Though I guess we are clear that you can drive down to cornwall, towing a caravan, and stay there for your isolation if there is an if chance you might at some point require childcare.
"I was subject to threats of violence. People came to my house shouting threats. There were posts on social media, encouraging attacks. There were many media reports on TV showing pictures of my house.
I was also worried that given the severity of this emergency, this situation would get worse. And I was worried about the possibility of leaving my wife and child at home all day and off into the night while I worked in No.10. I thought the best thing to do in all the circumstances was to drive to an isolated cottage on my father's farm."
This is excuse 6.2.m and it's Durham saying the Met couldn't protect the Cummings family from the harm that could be inflicted on them by certain elements in British society. That's what made Dom exceptional.
But I'm not going to delete constructively worded comments about it which are on the right side of the libel laws, either.
If I thought, however, when I listened to his explanation for what he did that this was a person who thought that the rules did not apply to him, I would consider that this would have made his position untenable.
It is absolutely essential that there is one law and set of rules for everyone because otherwise the rules will not be respected and obeyed - and that will result in avoidable deaths.
I think the report Gary is quoting about Durham police's statement must have been a longer and more comprehensive one than the report I have seen, but I understand Durham police have indeed released a statement to the effect that they have investigated the matter and that the DC's decision to self-isolate himself and his wife and child on an isolated cottage on his father's farm, maintaining social distancing, was not in fact a breach of the rules.
I did hear him say that, but I did not see it referred to in the report I had read of the statement by Durham constabulary.
IIRC it wasn't the primary reason he gave for his decision, though, which was childcare, and there is an exemption for that it in the rules.
I had assumed - and as I say, I don't claim to know - he was talking about The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 which I think you have seen the link to on the government website.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/11/made
It would have been the version in force at the time, it has subsequently been updated.
There are references to childcare in section six.
However, it is also possible that he was quoting the version in place at the time he went to Durham of the FAQ advice of which the current version can be found at
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do
Fair enough, but in the release from Durham Constabulary they do not identify which of the excuses deployed by Cummings they determined to be reasonable. "We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”. The "Rules" appear not to have much weight when placed on the scales opposite "Regulations", if we rely on the Police to report the balance of the two.
Given that mindset regarding the unreliability of guidance I suggest that the investigating officer looked to the Regulations, read Cummings's statement and concluded, as I did, that Cummings was claiming to have facilitated an "escape from risk of harm" for his wife and child. Illness the following morning prevented his planned return to London, which is unfortunate because had it held off until his return the story would probably never have seen the light of day.
So what is the story now then? Well, it appears to me that the Principal Special Adviser to a Prime Minister who was himself a former London Police Authority as Mayor, felt he could not rely on the Met to protect his family from credible and imminent threats (surely a necessary condition for an "escape") related to his central role in support of the UK government.
No wonder Durham Constabulary didn't feel inclined to identify the excuse(s)that they considered to be reasonable and why certain people urgently want to draw a line under it all. I suspect they will be disappointed as I very much doubt that we have heard the last of this particular issue.
I don't claim to know what is going on in Chris's mind, but one interpretation might be that he is rather less than comfortable with his half-baked defence of Cummings.
Cue a forthright refutation of this suggestion from Chris, while maintaining his position impaled on the fence of indecision.
Time to move on? I don't think so.
One of the more destructive ideas of modern times is that anyone who puts themselves forward for political office has to have an opinion about every imaginable subject. Even if the post they hold or are standing for has no locus on the subject.
If I felt I knew enough about the situation to issue a robust defence of DC I would do so, and it would have it's own thread.
If I were to come to the firm conclusion that DC had acted with no concern for the rules, or that he had damaged the lockdown by giving the public impression that he thought he was above the rules I would be calling for him to go, though I would probably have a far better chance of making that outcome more likely by using internal party channels rather than publishing it here.
(Yes, I know there are MPs, including one in Cumbria, who do not take that approach. The PM has to listen to MPs whatever channel they use. I am not in the same position.)
Cummings in the garden said "The Regulations make clear, I believe the risks to the health of a small child were an exceptional situation," . He was wrong, they don't. In fact, in so far as a child with sick parents is a vulnerable person, the Regulations (6.2(d)) clearly give a reasonable excuse to the niece in Durham to travel down to London to provide care and assistance or to take him away to another place.
On that basis I concluded that the Regulatory reasonable excuse that allowed Durham Constabulary to determine that no offence was committed was 6.2(m) (to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm) based on "I was subject to threats of violence...this situation would get worse and I was worried about the possibility of leaving my wife and child at home all day and off into the night while I worked in No.10."
As it is, Durham Constabulary did not identify the reasonable excuse that they relied on, leaving it open to speculation and "whatabout" comments such as that made by Jim ref childcare.
Also a little disturbing was their opening sentence. "On 27 March 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father." This is also not true as is evident from his statement. At the time of travel none of the family had experienced Covid symptoms and Cumming himself was planning to return to London for work, probably on the Sunday for a Monday start. He was not intending to self isolate on arrival and, I strongly suspect, neither was Mrs Cummings and child. By the way, the evidence that the property is owned by Cummings Snr, Cummings Jnr, his mother and sister is avaiable from the Land Registry and elsewhere online now.
Inevitably, there have been complaints about Durham Constabulary's handling of this investigation so it will be interesting to see if the Police Complaints authority now gets involved.
On the point about not knowing enough to blog an item on this subject, I'm sure your regular readers know enough about your role in the party to recognise that you regularly receive and publish "lines to take". Was there not one for this issue that you could have published? Anyway, I suspect from what you say that you have already told HQ what your personal view is.
"I do agree however, that things could and should have been more transparent, and would also go so far as to say that I would not have made those same decisions."
The Mail
I have made absolutely no secret that I regularly publish briefings from the party or the government. Indeed, where it is not totally obvious that this is what I am doing, and occasionally when it is, I identify them as such.
That doesn't stop me also publishing plenty of things which are my own opinions.
I hadn't actually noticed this until you asked the question but interestingly enough, unless I've missed it or accidentally deleted it, I don't think I have been sent a "line to take" instruction or briefing re Mr Cummings. Must be about the only contentious issue in years on which I have not been provided with a briefing paper!
Another snippet you might want to avoid looking at too closely, Chris, is that it now appears the cottage he stayed in has been built in a conservation area, without planning permission, without permission from the Coal Board (as required by the title deeds) - and is not even registered for council tax. In the unlikely event you DO want to check this out, @respectisvital on Twitter has the story.
Seems Cummings really does think he can pick and choose which regulations to abide by, and which to ignore.