5 ms·

To give some context, this is the guy who is currently at the centre of a scandal for breaking the law to drive hundreds of miles to his parents during lockdown

To give some context, this is the guy who is currently at the centre of a scandal for breaking the law to drive hundreds of miles to his parents during lockdown, with his wife (who had covid) and child in the car. And didn't even go directly, but stopped by a local beauty spot on the way back. And now he has been coming up with flimsy excuses for this for the last few days, which the government (including the prime minister) desperately parrots lest they would have to admit that one of their team did something wrong.

smcl 6y ago
I’m confused why you aren’t voted up, this is an extremely accurate description that is pertinent to the story. To give our non-UK friends a bit more context (in case anyone thinks “flimsy excuses” is applying a bit of bias) he was caught going on a walk in a little town near his second home (itself a few hundred miles from where he probably should have been). His excuse was that he was feeling ill and had troubles with his eyesight so he decided to go for a (30 mile) drive to check ... I dunno, if he could see I guess? That thing you do when you have trouble with your eyesight, jump into a car and go for a drive. Update: the “upvote” point was because your comment was greyed out, and after I upvoted you were still greyed out, suggesting you were fairly deep in the -ve at that point
- Cenk 6y ago
  Not only that, but the drive he took to “test his eye sight“ was with his wife and child in the car, they ended up driving to a local castle, and it happened to be on his wife’s birthday.
  - smcl 6y ago
    Good grief, his covid-positive wife was with him!?
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Yes. Him, his covid-19 positive wife, and their child drove 250 miles in the same car.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- Tenoke 6y ago
  It's not very accurate given that he didn't break any law as the parent claimed. He went against a guidance.
  - DangerousPie 6y ago
    He said he drove with impaired eye sight, which violates the road traffic act.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    He broke section 6 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, which is the law that implements the guidance.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      A law that Cummings himself was involved in drafting.
Bantros 6y ago
What law did he break?
- Cenk 6y ago
  He didn’t technically break a law, but definitely broke very clear government guidance – “Stay Home“ is about as unambiguous as it gets. Millions of people took the rules very seriously, missing loved one’s funerals for example, and he drove 260 miles to his parent’s house and a local castle.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    The law said one must not leave one's house without a "reasonable excuse". Going for an hour+ drive just to see if your eyes work is not a reasonable excuse.
  - Bantros 6y ago
    So no law was broken, just guidance... maybe. Depending on interpretation
    - Cenk 6y ago
      How else could one interpret “Stay Home“?
      - smcl 6y ago
        "Drive across the country and go for a picnic in Barnard Castle" apparently
      - Bantros 6y ago
        Not sure about you, but I certainly don't take a brightly coloured PR slogan plastered on a Tory government podium as gospel
dynamite-ready 6y ago
Isn't the story itself about a senior government adviser updating his blog, to make it look like he expected the Covid-19 crisis? The fact that the same adviser ignored his own advice, while both sickening, and amusingly ironic, is incidental here. I suppose though, it does help for context. It's basically Steve Bannon all over again.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Tenoke 6y ago
  He did expect this, just about pandemics and viruses in general not coronavirus specifically. Honestly, he should get a lot of credit for it (though he ruined that by editing) given that it's something he has talked a lot about.
- azernik 6y ago
  It's not incidental - he referenced this blog post in a press conference today, in which he responded to this scandal. (Without apologizing, of course.) The two are closely linked politically, as he is trying to defend himself from criticism by touting his supposed prescience.
  - dynamite-ready 6y ago
    That, I didn't know.
    - azernik 6y ago
      RTFA, I guess?
      - dynamite-ready 6y ago
        It's still only incidental though. I think another poster said it best, this is about him suggesting he did something he didn't to try and look clever. It's pretty interesting in itself, because Dominic Cummings stands on his body of work as a self styled paragon of scientific governance. Him being an arse is probably somewhat apart from that. Pretty sure he referenced various forms of 'scientific advice' a couple of times in that interview too. We could start leading this discussion towards the subject of him attending impartial scientific advisory meetings (the SAGE scandal). Or we could have a lengthy discussion about his eyesight... I think it's worth drawing a line around stuff like that. If we want to have a wide open political discussion about a key government adviser, we should probably base it on a more relevant story. But it probably would flounce HN rules. Also "RTFA"? Let's be polite. we should be sharing news sources. Not beating each other over the head with them.
azangru 6y ago
> who is currently at the centre of a scandal for breaking the law There was a recent story about Neil Gaiman travelling from New Zealand back to his home in Scotland. He was given a strict talking to by the police and issued a public apology – and that, as far as I understand, was the end of it. Is Cummings held to different standards?
- smcl 6y ago
  Did Neil Gaiman travel with his Covid 19 infected partner, or lie about his trip to get himself out of trouble? Come to think of it, has Cummings even apologised? Also we could hold him to the same standards as his peers - fellow politicians. The closest case I can think of is Catherine Calderwood ...
- DanBC 6y ago
  Cummings should be held to different standards. He's paid from public funds. He needs to follow the Nolan Principles of Public Office and he needs to follow the Special Adviser guidelines. Both of those contain clauses about openess and honesty.
- dghf 6y ago
  1. Cummings hasn't been given a strict talking to by the police. 2. Cummings hasn't issued a public apology. 3. Gaiman isn't an advisor to the Prime Minister, and wasn't intimately involved with the drafting of the rules he broke.
sfj 6y ago
If a doctor were to prescribe that a patient needs chemotherapy, you wouldn't expect the doctor to get chemotherapy along with the patient, right? Would you even trust a doctor that was undergoing intense chemotherapy with all the mental side effects along with it? Dominic Cummings is a senior political advisor to Boris Johnson himself. His thinking helps shape the country, and therefore he needs to constantly in top mental form, especially during this crisis. So, if he feels the need to travel the country as he did, everyone should support him, or face the consequences of having a mentally distracted political advisor trying to help run the country
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  What the hell are you talking about?!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sfj 6y ago
    What do you think?
- ArgyleSound 6y ago
  A doctor administering chemotherapy is such a daft counterargument that I don't know where to start. Dominic Cummings was infected with the Coronavirus and by moving to a second home and by his own admission using the local healthcare resources in that area he was risking spreading the virus.
  - sfj 6y ago
    > A doctor administering chemotherapy is such a daft counterargument that I don't know where to start. It's an analogy, you bobblehead. > Dominic Cummings was infected with the Coronavirus and by moving to a second home and by his own admission using the local healthcare resources in that area he was risking spreading the virus. One person's effect is so slight, it's negligible. However, having an advisor helping shape the laws and policies of the country not being in top form, is much more dangerous. Bad policy can kill thousands of people.

smcl 6y ago

I’m confused why you aren’t voted up, this is an extremely accurate description that is pertinent to the story. To give our non-UK friends a bit more context (in case anyone thinks “flimsy excuses” is applying a bit of bias) he was caught going on a walk in a little town near his second home (itself a few hundred miles from where he probably should have been). His excuse was that he was feeling ill and had troubles with his eyesight so he decided to go for a (30 mile) drive to check ... I dunno, if he could see I guess? That thing you do when you have trouble with your eyesight, jump into a car and go for a drive. Update: the “upvote” point was because your comment was greyed out, and after I upvoted you were still greyed out, suggesting you were fairly deep in the -ve at that point

Cenk 6y ago
Not only that, but the drive he took to “test his eye sight“ was with his wife and child in the car, they ended up driving to a local castle, and it happened to be on his wife’s birthday.
- smcl 6y ago
  Good grief, his covid-positive wife was with him!?
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Yes. Him, his covid-19 positive wife, and their child drove 250 miles in the same car.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Tenoke 6y ago
It's not very accurate given that he didn't break any law as the parent claimed. He went against a guidance.
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  He said he drove with impaired eye sight, which violates the road traffic act.
- DanBC 6y ago
  He broke section 6 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, which is the law that implements the guidance.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    A law that Cummings himself was involved in drafting.

Bantros 6y ago

What law did he break?

Cenk 6y ago
He didn’t technically break a law, but definitely broke very clear government guidance – “Stay Home“ is about as unambiguous as it gets. Millions of people took the rules very seriously, missing loved one’s funerals for example, and he drove 260 miles to his parent’s house and a local castle.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  The law said one must not leave one's house without a "reasonable excuse". Going for an hour+ drive just to see if your eyes work is not a reasonable excuse.
- Bantros 6y ago
  So no law was broken, just guidance... maybe. Depending on interpretation
  - Cenk 6y ago
    How else could one interpret “Stay Home“?
    - smcl 6y ago
      "Drive across the country and go for a picnic in Barnard Castle" apparently
    - Bantros 6y ago
      Not sure about you, but I certainly don't take a brightly coloured PR slogan plastered on a Tory government podium as gospel

dynamite-ready 6y ago

Isn't the story itself about a senior government adviser updating his blog, to make it look like he expected the Covid-19 crisis? The fact that the same adviser ignored his own advice, while both sickening, and amusingly ironic, is incidental here. I suppose though, it does help for context. It's basically Steve Bannon all over again.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Tenoke 6y ago
He did expect this, just about pandemics and viruses in general not coronavirus specifically. Honestly, he should get a lot of credit for it (though he ruined that by editing) given that it's something he has talked a lot about.
azernik 6y ago
It's not incidental - he referenced this blog post in a press conference today, in which he responded to this scandal. (Without apologizing, of course.) The two are closely linked politically, as he is trying to defend himself from criticism by touting his supposed prescience.
- dynamite-ready 6y ago
  That, I didn't know.
  - azernik 6y ago
    RTFA, I guess?
    - dynamite-ready 6y ago
      It's still only incidental though. I think another poster said it best, this is about him suggesting he did something he didn't to try and look clever. It's pretty interesting in itself, because Dominic Cummings stands on his body of work as a self styled paragon of scientific governance. Him being an arse is probably somewhat apart from that. Pretty sure he referenced various forms of 'scientific advice' a couple of times in that interview too. We could start leading this discussion towards the subject of him attending impartial scientific advisory meetings (the SAGE scandal). Or we could have a lengthy discussion about his eyesight... I think it's worth drawing a line around stuff like that. If we want to have a wide open political discussion about a key government adviser, we should probably base it on a more relevant story. But it probably would flounce HN rules. Also "RTFA"? Let's be polite. we should be sharing news sources. Not beating each other over the head with them.

azangru 6y ago

> who is currently at the centre of a scandal for breaking the law There was a recent story about Neil Gaiman travelling from New Zealand back to his home in Scotland. He was given a strict talking to by the police and issued a public apology – and that, as far as I understand, was the end of it. Is Cummings held to different standards?

smcl 6y ago
Did Neil Gaiman travel with his Covid 19 infected partner, or lie about his trip to get himself out of trouble? Come to think of it, has Cummings even apologised? Also we could hold him to the same standards as his peers - fellow politicians. The closest case I can think of is Catherine Calderwood ...
DanBC 6y ago
Cummings should be held to different standards. He's paid from public funds. He needs to follow the Nolan Principles of Public Office and he needs to follow the Special Adviser guidelines. Both of those contain clauses about openess and honesty.
dghf 6y ago
1. Cummings hasn't been given a strict talking to by the police. 2. Cummings hasn't issued a public apology. 3. Gaiman isn't an advisor to the Prime Minister, and wasn't intimately involved with the drafting of the rules he broke.

sfj 6y ago

If a doctor were to prescribe that a patient needs chemotherapy, you wouldn't expect the doctor to get chemotherapy along with the patient, right? Would you even trust a doctor that was undergoing intense chemotherapy with all the mental side effects along with it? Dominic Cummings is a senior political advisor to Boris Johnson himself. His thinking helps shape the country, and therefore he needs to constantly in top mental form, especially during this crisis. So, if he feels the need to travel the country as he did, everyone should support him, or face the consequences of having a mentally distracted political advisor trying to help run the country

DangerousPie 6y ago
What the hell are you talking about?!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sfj 6y ago
  What do you think?
ArgyleSound 6y ago
A doctor administering chemotherapy is such a daft counterargument that I don't know where to start. Dominic Cummings was infected with the Coronavirus and by moving to a second home and by his own admission using the local healthcare resources in that area he was risking spreading the virus.
- sfj 6y ago
  > A doctor administering chemotherapy is such a daft counterargument that I don't know where to start. It's an analogy, you bobblehead. > Dominic Cummings was infected with the Coronavirus and by moving to a second home and by his own admission using the local healthcare resources in that area he was risking spreading the virus. One person's effect is so slight, it's negligible. However, having an advisor helping shape the laws and policies of the country not being in top form, is much more dangerous. Bad policy can kill thousands of people.