Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK Politics Hamsterwheel Mk III

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK Politics Hamsterwheel Mk III

Old 23rd May 2020, 08:52
  #2961 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 796
VP959:
The point is that you keep using the number of tests performed per day as some sort of stick to beat the government with, and whilst there are a lot of things about this government that are worthy of criticism, blaming them for the number of tests per day dropping, as a consequence of the incidence of disease dropping, is unfair, and it tends to then lead to any valid criticisms that are subsequently made being lost in the general torrent of muck throwing. Under the current rules, those with symptoms are still supposed to self-isolate (so cannot go out to a test centre), so test centres should be only dealing with those who are well, but have a valid reason for being tested, like those working in the health and care sector.
Now I know for certain you do not read fully other people's posts. I do not use the number of tests performed per day as some sort of stick ..etc I use those numbers to point out the lies and spin we are being fed on a daily basis. Frankly, I am not sure I worry about whether there are 100 tests per day or 1 million. The point is the government lies/obfuscates/spins (pick a verb) on a regular basis and I feel I am entitles to shout "Liar, liar etc" when I see this. Besides the moral issue of lying, there is the assumption that we, the great unwashed, are stupid to see through the lies, adding to the insult of the way the government view us. I would have a vastly different view of the Whitehall parasites if only they had the balls to come up one day and say something along the lines of "We know we set this target and, unfortunately, things have conspired to make this target problematical.." That, I would class as honesty and that scores much higher with me.
Your point regarding who should be tested and who not is also a demonstration of your refusal to read and understand what is being shown you. Beginning with your assertion that "under the current rules...". I recommend you read the gov.uk and NHS pages on who gets tested. You say only the well should be getting tested. The well do not show any symptoms and therefore can not comply with the government's recommendation that the ideal time to show up for a test is within the first 3 days of your symptoms appearing. What are the symptoms of being well, I wonder?
KelvinD is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:42
  #2962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
Equally, I do not understand the logic of repeating duff information on a daily basis. Other, that is, than to create a bogus impression that all is well, look at what fantastic (and of course 'world beating') things your government is doing for you.
It's probably just me, I see the briefings as election broadcasts. BJ and his team are good at winning elections, that's all they know how to do. They are stuck in the only mode they know. The virus is just the nasty opposition and they can't let them win. The virus can't be trusted with the economy, you'll be jobless etc, keep voting (clapping) for us and we will win.They might as well put the stuff on the side of buses, if they were all running.

As someone pointed out on the radio the other day, using your common sense is an individual action and it is the job of government to protect us from the actions of individuals.
Grayfly is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 09:56
  #2963 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 0
KD
Posturing and posing are the twin attributes of any politician. They must always have what they think is the correct answer !

Last edited by Capt Kremmen; 23rd May 2020 at 11:11.
Capt Kremmen is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:13
  #2964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
VP959:
Now I know for certain you do not read fully other people's posts. I do not use the number of tests performed per day as some sort of stick ..etc I use those numbers to point out the lies and spin we are being fed on a daily basis. Frankly, I am not sure I worry about whether there are 100 tests per day or 1 million. The point is the government lies/obfuscates/spins (pick a verb) on a regular basis and I feel I am entitles to shout "Liar, liar etc" when I see this. Besides the moral issue of lying, there is the assumption that we, the great unwashed, are stupid to see through the lies, adding to the insult of the way the government view us. I would have a vastly different view of the Whitehall parasites if only they had the balls to come up one day and say something along the lines of "We know we set this target and, unfortunately, things have conspired to make this target problematical.." That, I would class as honesty and that scores much higher with me.
Your point regarding who should be tested and who not is also a demonstration of your refusal to read and understand what is being shown you. Beginning with your assertion that "under the current rules...". I recommend you read the gov.uk and NHS pages on who gets tested. You say only the well should be getting tested. The well do not show any symptoms and therefore can not comply with the government's recommendation that the ideal time to show up for a test is within the first 3 days of your symptoms appearing. What are the symptoms of being well, I wonder?
The point is that you're intent on making out that the number of tests per day is something that the government MUST adhere to, and if they don't (because the demand for tests has dropped at testing centres) then that's somehow lying by politicians. Politicians are certainly amongst the least honest people on the planet, IMHO, but I fail to see how they can force people to book tests, just to get the daily numbers to match their predictions. The important point seems to be getting lost in the noise, which is whether or not we have enough testing capacity to meet the need. The evidence suggests that we do, at least for now, so arguably all those who have been working hard to put in place new testing capability (and they aren't politicians) have done their job pretty well.

The current rules I referred to are these: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavi...getting-tested But there is a caveat that MUST be read in conjunction with this current guidance (last updated 18/5/2020), which is this: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...d-19-infection

Main messages
  • if you live alone and you have symptoms of coronavirus illness (COVID-19), however mild, stay at home for at least 7 days from when your symptoms started. (The ending isolation section below has more information)
  • after 7 days, if you do not have a high temperature, you do not need to continue to self-isolate. If you still have a high temperature, keep self-isolating until your temperature returns to normal. You do not need to self-isolate if you only have a cough or anosmia after 7 days, as these symptoms can last for several weeks after the infection has gone
  • if you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19), then you must stay at home for at least 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill. See the explanatory diagram
  • for anyone else in the household who starts displaying symptoms, they need to stay at home for at least 7 days from when the symptoms appeared, regardless of what day they are on in the original 14 day isolation period. The ending isolation section below has more information, and see the explanatory diagram
if you have coronavirus (COVID-19) symptoms:
  • do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital
  • you do not need to contact 111 to tell them you’re staying at home
  • testing for coronavirus (COVID-19) is not needed if you’re staying at home

Last edited by VP959; 23rd May 2020 at 10:57. Reason: Added second quote for clarity
VP959 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:32
  #2965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 54
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by farsouth View Post
Seems the police visited the house he had visited while he was there, following reports of his presence https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-23/...sack-cummings/

Would have been quite appropriate if they had said “well, now you are here, you can stay here for the remainder of the lockdown”. Instead, he was presumably allowed to travel the country again to return home, while displaying coronavirus symptoms (again, according to the linked article/Downing Street).
The government have now gone into uber-hypocritical mode over this. Apparently it was all justified and legal as he and his wife had symptoms and were worried about child care.

So let me see if I understand this:

2 people already showing symptoms decide to drive 270 miles from their home to stay with his parents. Presumably on a drive of that distance, especially with a young child, they will have needed to stop en route - either they peed in a few hedges on the way, or spread a bit of viral love around a service station or 2 as they went.

This is despite government instruction that anyone displaying symptoms should return home immediately and self isolate for at least 7 days, not even going out for essential supplies.

They also seem to be accusing Durham Police of lying, as the statement from Downing Street clearly states that neither he nor his family were spoken to by police, yet Durham police have said that they did.

This could run for a bit yet!




Curious Pax is online now  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:45
  #2966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Cummings needs to go, plain and simple.

Travelling 270 miles, whilst exhibiting symptoms of this disease is indefensible, and a highly reckless thing to have done. His excuse is simply feeble. If he was well enough to drive 270 miles he was obviously well enough to look after his family.

Neil Ferguson's breach was massively less significant by comparison, as he'd both recovered from Covid-19 (and assumed that having done so he had a degree of acquired immunity) and even then it wasn't him that actually broke the rules, but the lady that went to see him. Neil Ferguson's breach is at least understandable, in that his assumption that he had acquired immunity does seem to be pretty well founded (given that we're developing vaccines that do much the same thing).

It's clearly one rule for politicians and their hanger's on, and another for everyone else.
VP959 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:47
  #2967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: northants
Posts: 204
Dominic Cummings resign like all the hypocrites before you, Catherine Calderwood, Neil Ferguson to name but two.
yakker is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 10:54
  #2968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,292
It's clearly one rule for politicians and their hanger's on, and another for everyone else.
Only so if the population allow it, unchecked.
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:07
  #2969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 387
Interesting
"Meanwhile, in a Spectator article published on 24 April, Cumming’s wife Mary Wakefield wrote about her experiences suffering from coronavirus, where she dreamed of being looked after by Cummings but within 24 hours of her symptoms starting “he said ‘I feel weird’ and collapsed”. She went on to explain that for the next 10 days “Dom couldn’t get out of bed. Day in, day out for ten days he lay doggo with a high fever and spasms that made the muscles lump and twitch in his legs.”At some point within those 10 days, Cummings drove over 250 miles to his parent’s property near Durham in direct contravention of the UK-wide lockdown regulations that had come into force a week earlier. Wakefield never mentions this trip.

Later in the article, Wakefield talks of “[emerging]from quarantine into the almost comical uncertainty of London lockdown”, carefully avoiding any mention that this emergence involved driving half the length of the country and that their previous experience of lockdown was form a picturesque country farmhouse. Neither article mentions needing to travel north to find help with childcare or how the family put numerous people at risk, including Cummings own elderly parents. The only location Wakefield mentions in her article is London, implying that is where the family stayed for the duration of their isolation, when in reality they had left London and driven 260 miles north to stay in a picturesque country farmhouse in direct contravention of government policy."

Difficult to believe that no one else in Govt knew about this at the time.






Brewster Buffalo is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:08
  #2970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Station 42
Age: 65
Posts: 857
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Cummings needs to go, plain and simple.

Travelling 270 miles, whilst exhibiting symptoms of this disease is indefensible, and a highly reckless thing to have done. His excuse is simply feeble. If he was well enough to drive 270 miles he was obviously well enough to look after his family.

Neil Ferguson's breach was massively less significant by comparison, as he'd both recovered from Covid-19 (and assumed that having done so he had a degree of acquired immunity) and even then it wasn't him that actually broke the rules, but the lady that went to see him. Neil Ferguson's breach is at least understandable, in that his assumption that he had acquired immunity does seem to be pretty well founded (given that we're developing vaccines that do much the same thing).

It's clearly one rule for politicians and their hanger's on, and another for everyone else.
Quite. And on the same BBC News front page:

Quote - Coronavirus: Nurse hasn't hugged her son, aged two, in five weeks.A self-isolating nurse who has been separated from her two-year-old son for five weeks has said not being able to hug him has been heartbreaking. Charlotte Cole took the hard decision to move George to her parents, who live five minutes away, after Covid-19 was confirmed at one of her workplaces. The 30-year-old and her husband have been making daily trips to see the toddler through a window ever since.

Life is tough for a lot of people... some more than others.

stevef is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:16
  #2971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Brewster Buffalo View Post
Interesting
"Meanwhile, in a Spectator article published on 24 April, Cumming’s wife Mary Wakefield wrote about her experiences suffering from coronavirus, where she dreamed of being looked after by Cummings but within 24 hours of her symptoms starting “he said ‘I feel weird’ and collapsed”. She went on to explain that for the next 10 days “Dom couldn’t get out of bed. Day in, day out for ten days he lay doggo with a high fever and spasms that made the muscles lump and twitch in his legs.”At some point within those 10 days, Cummings drove over 250 miles to his parent’s property near Durham in direct contravention of the UK-wide lockdown regulations that had come into force a week earlier. Wakefield never mentions this trip.

Later in the article, Wakefield talks of “[emerging]from quarantine into the almost comical uncertainty of London lockdown”, carefully avoiding any mention that this emergence involved driving half the length of the country and that their previous experience of lockdown was form a picturesque country farmhouse. Neither article mentions needing to travel north to find help with childcare or how the family put numerous people at risk, including Cummings own elderly parents. The only location Wakefield mentions in her article is London, implying that is where the family stayed for the duration of their isolation, when in reality they had left London and driven 260 miles north to stay in a picturesque country farmhouse in direct contravention of government policy."

Difficult to believe that no one else in Govt knew about this at the time.
Even more unbelievable that Boris Johnson appears to be defending Cummings actions:

The PM's chief aide Dominic Cummings' trip from London to Durham with his sick wife to be near relatives during the coronavirus lockdown was "in line" with guidelines, says No 10.
A spokesman said it was "essential" for Mr Cummings to ensure he had childcare if he also developed Covid-19 symptoms.
It's pretty damned obvious that there's more than a hint of dishonesty about what's been said. If what Cummings and his wife did was wholly within the rules, then why the deceit in that Spectator article? They clearly knew full well that what they had done was indefensible, or at the very least open to question.

How can someone so seriously ill be fit to drive a car over 250 miles? Surely that alone has to be incredibly stupid, not to mention probably being a road traffic offence.
VP959 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:21
  #2972 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 0
When 'looking after one's family' is the point in question, their needs come first. That much must be obvious to the most slavish rule takers. More than anything, families matter and after taking whatever precautions I felt were necessary, I would have done exactly the same as, allegedly, did Mr. Cummings.
Capt Kremmen is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:34
  #2973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,827
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen View Post
When 'looking after one's family' is the point in question, their needs come first. That much must be obvious to the most slavish rule takers. More than anything, families matter and after taking whatever precautions I felt were necessary, I would have done exactly the same as, allegedly, did Mr. Cummings.
No it's not; what they apparently did was drive themselves 270 miles, whilst both probably suffering from an illness that is known can worsen very quickly. What if the driver or the passenger had suddenly become ill, called emergency services, bringing out ambulance plus police - infection could have been spread to crews from either service? Then, there the risk of passing the virus on to his parents, through the children. Reckless doesn't begin to describe the actions of this self righteous, self important bombastic hypocrite.

If he wasn't such a dangerous man to have advising the PM he should still go. As it is, it's an ideal opportunity for Johnson to get him out of No.10; he's done his job, insofar as he got the "leave" result, and then also got Johnson elected so really has no further obvious use for the Tory party.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:36
  #2974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen View Post
When 'looking after one's family' is the point in question, their needs come first. That much must be obvious to the most slavish rule takers. More than anything, families matter and after taking whatever precautions I felt were necessary, I would have done exactly the same as, allegedly, did Mr. Cummins.
There seems to be far more to this that just Cummings and Wakefield seeking child care, though. The Spectator article by Wakefield alone casts a fair bit of doubt on the whole thing, and raises even more questions about whether what Cummings has given as the reason for their journey is true. Frankly I think he, and Boris Johnson, are now trying to make out that Cumming's and Wakefield's actions were "reasonable", when by Wakefield's own account it seems that they most probably weren't. Cummings was spotted at his parent's place by one or two journos, which is probably the only reason that the pair of them are now trying to fabricate a story to justify their actions during this lockdown.

There are, I'm sure, many of us who might have liked to argue that they had a pressing reason to travel a couple of hundred miles or so, including us (my MiL is in her late 80's, has COPD and lives alone about 120 miles away, for example). If Wakefield's story in the Spectator is accurate, at least as far as their Covid-19 symptoms, then were they really safe to drive that sort of distance, with a young child in the car? I doubt that it's reasonable for anyone to drive that distance, with a young child in the car, and not stop. So, we have two people, who, by the admission of one of them, had a severe and disabling infectious disease, potentially having spread infection anywhere they may have stopped, in addition to potentially being unfit to drive (if Wakefield's account of the symptoms is accurate).

Plenty of people were stopped, fined and sent back home for breaching the lockdown rules, but it seems that Cummings is exempt from these rules, simply because of who he works for. The whole thing stinks, IMHO.
VP959 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:38
  #2975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by yakker View Post
Dominic Cummings resign like all the hypocrites before you, Catherine Calderwood, Neil Ferguson to name but two.
Here we go, let the witch hunt begin. All the closet Trotskyites moving in for the kill. They sense that a political Big Beast is vulnerable. Time for the chopping block if you can for a moment stop salivating.
Ask yourselves this: What would you have done in similar circumstances ? Ignore the close bond of family ties and mutter "they'll have to take pot luck like everyone else!". Yeah! Right !
Capt Kremmen is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:41
  #2976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen View Post
Here we go, let the witch hunt begin. All the closet Trotskyites moving in for the kill. They sense that a political Big Beast is vulnerable. Time for the chopping block if you can for a moment stop salivating.
Ask yourselves this: What would you have done in similar circumstances ? Ignore the close bond of family ties and mutter "they'll have to take pot luck like everyone else!". Yeah! Right !
There's a very simple way to clear this up. If Cummings actions were reasonable, then anyone else that was stopped, fined and sent back home for trying to do something similar in the past couple of months must have their penalty rescinded and be given, at the very least, a letter of apology.

We simply cannot have one set of rules for the general population and a totally different set of rules for those within government.
VP959 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 11:47
  #2977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
No it's not; what they apparently did was drive themselves 270 miles, whilst both probably suffering from an illness that is known can worsen very quickly. What if the driver or the passenger had suddenly become ill, called emergency services, bringing out ambulance plus police - infection could have been spread to crews from either service? Then, there the risk of passing the virus on to his parents, through the children. Reckless doesn't begin to describe the actions of this self righteous, self important bombastic hypocrite.

If he wasn't such a dangerous man to have advising the PM he should still go. As it is, it's an ideal opportunity for Johnson to get him out of No.10; he's done his job, insofar as he got the "leave" result, and then also got Johnson elected so really has no further obvious use for the Tory party.
Perhaps you could offer to fill his boots - Heaven forbid ! Let me ask you this: are there no circumstances in your compass when the heart should rule the head ? In mine there is most assuredly - subject to suitable caveats - when my family require my presence.
Capt Kremmen is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 12:00
  #2978 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
There's a very simple way to clear this up. If Cummings actions were reasonable, then anyone else that was stopped, fined and sent back home for trying to do something similar in the past couple of months must have their penalty rescinded and be given, at the very least, a letter of apology.

We simply cannot have one set of rules for the general population and a totally different set of rules for those within government.
VP
It is plain to me that you are an intelligent and entirely rational person. You will know as I know that there are certain circumstances that do not generate rational thought. This subject is one such. Where and when loved ones are concerned, rational thought can be and often is suspended. When matters go wrong - as happens often - the suspension of rational thought cannot be an excuse but, it is powerfully mitigating. Why? Because we're human and we all more or less respond to the same human values. It remains to be seen if Mr. Cummings did any wrong. If he did and his actions were humanitarian then his situation is very different from the many who, it appears stepped outside the travel restrictions for solely pleasurable and recreational purposes.
Capt Kremmen is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 12:11
  #2979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen View Post
VP
It is plain to me that you are an intelligent and entirely rational person. You will know as I know that there are certain circumstances that do not generate rational thought. This subject is one such. Where and when loved ones are concerned, rational thought can be and often is suspended. When matters go wrong - as happens often - the suspension of rational thought cannot be an excuse but, it is powerfully mitigating. Why? Because we're human and we all more or less respond to the same human values. It remains to be seen if Mr. Cummings did any wrong. If he did and his actions were humanitarian then his situation is very different from the many who, it appears stepped outside the travel restrictions for solely pleasurable and recreational purposes.
That argument could, and perhaps should, be applied to anyone that breached the lock down rules for an apparently well-motivated reason, though. What we don't know is whether what Cummings has said is true (and that's now questionable in the light of Wakefield's account of their illness in the article in The Spectator), and how many other people were stopped, and perhaps penalised, for having done something similar.

We would very much have liked to drive down to pick my MiL up and bring her to stay with us for the duration of lock-down, but were told that we could not (I did ask this specific question at the end of March). We both knew that if we could have picked her up this would have been safer as, by virtue of the way our house is laid out, and our location, we can pretty easily manage without needing to go out, and one spare room is pretty much already a bed sitting room, with an en suite bathroom, so we could have set up "isolation within isolation" if we needed to. Instead, my MiL has had more carers coming in to her house every day throughout the lockdown, something that I believe is a significantly greater risk to her health (and that of her carers, I suspect).
VP959 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2020, 12:29
  #2980 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,827
Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen View Post
Perhaps you could offer to fill his boots - Heaven forbid ! Let me ask you this: are there no circumstances in your compass when the heart should rule the head ? In mine there is most assuredly - subject to suitable caveats - when my family require my presence.
Of course there are extreme circumstances, but selfishly driving hundreds of miles without any need, just a desire does not qualify. Had his parents driven down to London to sort out the kids that would have been a more sensible course of action, and as someone close to the levers of power I'd like think that Cummings was capable of rational evaluation of a situation, a devising the least worse course of action.

By the way, have I rumbled your true identity - are you Dominic Cummings??
ATNotts is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.