4 ms·

It's not so much the travel to Durham, it's the travel to Barnard Castle ( a 60 mile round trip) to 'test' his eys, including a nice little walk along the river

It's not so much the travel to Durham, it's the travel to Barnard Castle ( a 60 mile round trip) to 'test' his eys, including a nice little walk along the river bank - on a day that just so happened to be his wife's birthday. There's is no fathomable justification for that and exposed his contempt for the rules.

marcoperaza 6y ago
I'd be contemptuous of such stupid rules too. How is going for a walk outdoors a problem? Why is it relevant how far he drove to get there? I can't help but think that the Brits have taken the scolding aspect of this lockdown way too far.
- vinay427 6y ago
  Because this government decided it was a problem, then chose to look the other way when Cummings ignored these rules. Countless people have been forced to let their loved ones be buried or cremated without traditional ritual closure, or have not been there through the last days of others, all because the government convinced them that it was the right thing to do for public health. Maybe it was, but it should strike a nerve when someone professing these guidelines ignores them for a much sillier purpose and is lauded for his "integrity" and qualities as a "father." Were those ordinary Britons bad sons, daughters, siblings, and parents for not evading the same rules for their loved ones? Did they act without integrity?
  - marcoperaza 6y ago
    A funeral, attended by many people, is rather different than a drive and walk through nature with the people you live with. Anyhow, the hypocrisy angle makes sense. Two strikes for everyone involved: one for coming up with the stupid rules and two for then breaking them themselves/covering it up.
- sideshowb 6y ago
  At one point we were not allowed to drive for anything non-essential. (was this the case for Cummings at the time? it's still the case where I live in Wales) Stated reasons were (1) reducing load on health services from road accidents (which has worked - my friend in A&E says he's "never sat around on his arse so much at work before"); (2) reduce transmission of virus at fuel stations, risk to breakdown services, etc
  - marcoperaza 6y ago
    Driving around was one of the ways I kept my sanity through all this. I'm sorry your government came up with such stupid rules.
    - sideshowb 6y ago
      Yeah I'm not very enamoured with Welsh rules at the moment, especially the fact they are only revised every 3 weeks. Personally I'm lucky to live in the countryside, really feel for those trapped in cities though.
      - Nursie 6y ago
        I'm happy in my city, but then I live in the centre of a small-ish city on the South coast, we have a small garden and there are parks nearby. I feel for people stuck in apartments!
  - makomk 6y ago
    The restrictions in Wales were generally stricter than the English ones. In England, people were somewhat advised against driving to national parks or other green spaces to walk, but ... well, read the wording of the Government's own contemporary FAQ and see: https://web.archive.org/web/20200402224312/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do#can-i-go-to-the-park https://web.archive.org/web/20200402224312/https://www.gov.u... Quite vague and fuzzy, isn't it? If I remember rightly, there was actually a bit of a controversy over this because the police in some areas got it into their heads that no-one should be driving to places to walk full stop and started pushing that message and complaining about people not following it, even though that wasn't actually a rule. Though it's entirely possible a lot of the media coverage of that has also been memory-holed and only exists in the Wayback machine; the BBC in particular have been completely rewriting articles a lot lately. (The restriction to one session of exercise per day was also only legally enforceable in Wales and not England, for some reason, even though it was part of the advice in both.)
- leonk 6y ago
  Even if it wasn't a problem (which it was, at the time he did it). It's his covering up of his actions + colleagues backing him up, which is the real issue here. He's so blatantly lying about the "eye sight test", it shows a total lack of respect for the public and his role as part of the UK government. They should be, if anything, following the rules more than anyone else in order to set an example.
- Nursie 6y ago
  > How is going for a walk outdoors a problem? Why is it relevant how far he drove to get there? The lockdown rules the country was under set these rules as a condition - you may leave the house only to exercise, and you may not travel to get to a place to exercise. This was to stop people going to tourist spots, petrol stations and other places they may interact with others. You're right in a way - a single family doing it probably causes no actual harm because they're the only people present. Now - who gave this unelected government advisor special permission to go there and be that single family, while nobody else could, and was locked down hard?
- afandian 6y ago
  Given his involvement in government, it's entirely possible that he himself was involved in writing the rules.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Why is it relevant how far he drove to get there? He drove from an area with high rates of Covid-19, with his covid-19 positive wife, to an area with low rates of Covid-19. This is entirely the point of lockdown -- to reduce the spread of the disease.
- rbg246 6y ago
  It's different if you did Vs the guy who made the rules. When you make the rules you should be following them.

marcoperaza 6y ago

I'd be contemptuous of such stupid rules too. How is going for a walk outdoors a problem? Why is it relevant how far he drove to get there? I can't help but think that the Brits have taken the scolding aspect of this lockdown way too far.

vinay427 6y ago
Because this government decided it was a problem, then chose to look the other way when Cummings ignored these rules. Countless people have been forced to let their loved ones be buried or cremated without traditional ritual closure, or have not been there through the last days of others, all because the government convinced them that it was the right thing to do for public health. Maybe it was, but it should strike a nerve when someone professing these guidelines ignores them for a much sillier purpose and is lauded for his "integrity" and qualities as a "father." Were those ordinary Britons bad sons, daughters, siblings, and parents for not evading the same rules for their loved ones? Did they act without integrity?
- marcoperaza 6y ago
  A funeral, attended by many people, is rather different than a drive and walk through nature with the people you live with. Anyhow, the hypocrisy angle makes sense. Two strikes for everyone involved: one for coming up with the stupid rules and two for then breaking them themselves/covering it up.
sideshowb 6y ago
At one point we were not allowed to drive for anything non-essential. (was this the case for Cummings at the time? it's still the case where I live in Wales) Stated reasons were (1) reducing load on health services from road accidents (which has worked - my friend in A&E says he's "never sat around on his arse so much at work before"); (2) reduce transmission of virus at fuel stations, risk to breakdown services, etc
- marcoperaza 6y ago
  Driving around was one of the ways I kept my sanity through all this. I'm sorry your government came up with such stupid rules.
  - sideshowb 6y ago
    Yeah I'm not very enamoured with Welsh rules at the moment, especially the fact they are only revised every 3 weeks. Personally I'm lucky to live in the countryside, really feel for those trapped in cities though.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      I'm happy in my city, but then I live in the centre of a small-ish city on the South coast, we have a small garden and there are parks nearby. I feel for people stuck in apartments!
- makomk 6y ago
  The restrictions in Wales were generally stricter than the English ones. In England, people were somewhat advised against driving to national parks or other green spaces to walk, but ... well, read the wording of the Government's own contemporary FAQ and see: https://web.archive.org/web/20200402224312/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do#can-i-go-to-the-park https://web.archive.org/web/20200402224312/https://www.gov.u... Quite vague and fuzzy, isn't it? If I remember rightly, there was actually a bit of a controversy over this because the police in some areas got it into their heads that no-one should be driving to places to walk full stop and started pushing that message and complaining about people not following it, even though that wasn't actually a rule. Though it's entirely possible a lot of the media coverage of that has also been memory-holed and only exists in the Wayback machine; the BBC in particular have been completely rewriting articles a lot lately. (The restriction to one session of exercise per day was also only legally enforceable in Wales and not England, for some reason, even though it was part of the advice in both.)
leonk 6y ago
Even if it wasn't a problem (which it was, at the time he did it). It's his covering up of his actions + colleagues backing him up, which is the real issue here. He's so blatantly lying about the "eye sight test", it shows a total lack of respect for the public and his role as part of the UK government. They should be, if anything, following the rules more than anyone else in order to set an example.
Nursie 6y ago
> How is going for a walk outdoors a problem? Why is it relevant how far he drove to get there? The lockdown rules the country was under set these rules as a condition - you may leave the house only to exercise, and you may not travel to get to a place to exercise. This was to stop people going to tourist spots, petrol stations and other places they may interact with others. You're right in a way - a single family doing it probably causes no actual harm because they're the only people present. Now - who gave this unelected government advisor special permission to go there and be that single family, while nobody else could, and was locked down hard?
afandian 6y ago
Given his involvement in government, it's entirely possible that he himself was involved in writing the rules.
DanBC 6y ago
> Why is it relevant how far he drove to get there? He drove from an area with high rates of Covid-19, with his covid-19 positive wife, to an area with low rates of Covid-19. This is entirely the point of lockdown -- to reduce the spread of the disease.
rbg246 6y ago
It's different if you did Vs the guy who made the rules. When you make the rules you should be following them.