Jump to content

UK says PM's adviser did not break lockdown rules with 400 km drive


rooster59

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, david555 said:

But then the leaders should had made the rule for ALL parents to be allowed in such case …., not for the happy few bunch ….and also for the common people

I can only reiterate that Dom did what he thought was best, as surely you and I would have done, when it comes to families I'm afraid the rule book may go out of the window. I'm sure he didn't drive all that way so he could be a little nearer to the 'Angel of the North'

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, david555 said:

And take the consequences of his actions as others did before him and resigned ….

Taking care of your family is not a crime. To put it a different way if one of your family members was ill, or in a crisis, I am sure you wouldn't say 'I'd better not go see them because Boris says', you would be on the A1 faster than a rat up a drainpipe.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, david555 said:

But then the leaders should had made the rule for ALL parents to be allowed in such case …., not for the happy few bunch ….and also for the common people

They did on March 24th

However Dr Jenny Harries said at the daily Downing Street press briefing on 24 March that a small child could be considered “vulnerable”.

Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance. And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

They did on March 24th

However Dr Jenny Harries said at the daily Downing Street press briefing on 24 March that a small child could be considered “vulnerable”.

Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance. And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs.

If he was allowed why then now so much fuzz about …. the rules seems to change every passing day …..anyway I am sure a certain K.Starmer is preparing the "sectioning " of a PM already,... as before ….. looks like Boris found his politic executioner …..????

Edited by david555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

If he was allowed why then now so much fuzz about …. the rules seems to change every passing day …..anyway I am sure a certain K.Starmer is preparing the "section" of a PM already,... as before ….. looks like Boris found his politic executioner …..????

Because most people forget about the small details, her statement was within 24 hrs of  Boris made the statement about lockdowns

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, elliss said:

 

 lets get one thing clear , he he broke guidelines , implemented by this Government .

      He must suffer from the consequences , of his actions ..

 

But He didn't as previously stated 

Within 24 hours, Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer for England, outlined possible exceptions to that rule, including how ill parents with a small child created “exceptional circumstances”.

At the Downing Street press conference on March 24 Dr Harries said parents who are ill and may not be able to look after a child created “exceptional circumstances” where family members could be called upon to help.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So all those thousands of peopl who have been unable to spend time with their loved ones as they slipped away or been able to attend their funerals - they should have ignored the rules and done what they thought best for themselves? 

People did attend funerals

As it stands, only immediate family members are allowed to attend funeral services.

Although this may vary from person to person, immediate family members generally refers to a parent, son or daughter, partner or spouse.

As a result of restrictions to how many people can attend a funeral service, you must check and confirm with your local council and funeral director as they may impose a limit on number of attendees.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11339842/funerals-coronavirus-lockdown/

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vogie said:

But that is the point David, it appears to be an all party make it up as you go along, but in Doms case he chose his family which I'm sure most of us would have done, families come before politics.

Most of the posters on here if they were honest would have done exactly the same thing, I know I would, I would have walked the 260 miles if I had to, and if you are a father you would have done so too.

 

 May i suggest , contacting the emergency services , would have been a better option .

     They are the medical professionals , they know what they are talking about .

        Nuff said ...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I can  can only view the actions  of this "special" person to be an abuse of position in the face of the facts.

That his wife had already been identified as  infected and the  possibility that he and his child too were latent victims then to deposit the child with elderly carers in defiance of public announced recommendations does not convince me  his  "advisory" role or excuses in justification are particularly valid.

The exact sequence is far from clear yet the gallows are already being erected. Cummings & plods version of events differ significantly from the nonsense being peddled for political gain & I for one have no idea where truth lies....and what's this about 'crime'?

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non story with the usual suspects still gabbin on about Brexit, 6 pages already.

Tens of thousands in the uk haven’t bothered at all with the so called lockdown regulations, regardless of political persuasions.

This Cummings fellow was probably right from the beginning with his herd mentality.

In short no laws broken, nobody injured, nothing to see, move along, next story please.

 

Edited by twocatsmac
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

Most probably they also would break rules , but be very sure convinced that they have to get the punishment afterwards …… Cummings is trying to use his prerogatives  ,and that is disgusting to all the common people 

At last you have agreed with me, halleluja. It is not "disgusting to all the common people" it is disgusting to those with a political agenda.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The exact sequence is far from clear yet the gallows are already being erected. Cummings & plods version of events differ significantly from the nonsense being peddled for political gain & I for one have no idea where truth lies....and what's this about 'crime'?

lol. I think the events as outlined are no so open to much in the way of "versions". Granted the hype generated is likely to have political emphasis but as to crime ? If in  comparison  is there  any  lesser or greater crime than that of an individual of  no significance politically being laid out in a public place by British  Police for actions that in essence are equal ?

The nub of the issue is that it is another  case of  do as  "We" say, not as  we  do !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...