| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins 15:34 - May 28 with 2944 views | Keno |
Thank you getting in touch to share your view of the actions of Dominic Cummings.
I am grateful for the many constituents, yourself included, who have made their views clear and I wish you well. It is easy to understand the strength of concern many share over the actions of Dominic Cummings and the Government's reaction. I have not met Dominic before nor would I wish to defend him.
There is quite a volume of correspondence relating to Covid19. We are trying to deal without delay with urgent casework. Responding to you may necessarily have taken longer than usual. For this we ask for your understanding and thank you for your patience.
As a nation, we have taken the necessary actions to reduce the peak and throttle back the transmission of Covid19. We now must work to restore normal life as much as possible whilst remaining vigilant and careful to take the precautions needed to prevent a second wave of illness.
As Member of Parliament, I will continue to do all I can to help those who come to me for assistance.
My team and I do our best to highlight policies that need correcting to the Prime Minister, Chancellor and other responsible Ministers whenever appropriate, to push for fairness for all. I could list a number, mainly in the health field, that were successful. We have had a number of successes.
Many have concerns about the situation with Dominic Cummings, with condemnation of his actions and some with. I appreciate all who have taken the time to write and I wish to assure you your views are taken into consideration. In my life of public service, I do not recall asking for a resignation, regardless of party. It is not my intention to start now. This will disappoint some calling for resignations.
I share sympathy for each household that has been affected directly or indirectly by COVID-19. The pain of this pandemic has touched us. My doctor daughter volunteered to pause her hospital consultant role to help on the frontline. Friends of ours have died; parents of colleagues have died. None of us are immune to the far reaching effects of this disease.
Some have been forced to make heart-breaking decisions during this lockdown period, with painful separation from loved ones whilst they are at their most vulnerable. We share in gratitude and understanding that these have been vital to reduce the spread of the virus.
This has been particularly difficult for those who were alone during illness or left to grieve alone at their time of greatest need. Many still face dreadful hardship. They need help. My team and I want you to know that we are ready to do all we can to try to assist you.
We can give a general thanksgiving for our communal resolve to abide by the guidelines to keep those around us safe and healthy. Some may join a general confession that they inadvertently acted beyond the guidance or the advice in a stressed or panicked situation, or out of fear for a loved one believing this was necessary.
We can review the overall figures and ascertain that even with some actions at odds with the rules, the overall task of helping to combat the disease has been working. This is down to all who stayed at home, protected the NHS and practised social distancing when making necessary journeys.
The role of the media in this story has received some attention and criticism. I remain a vocal supporter of the BBC and our national and local media in their efforts to hold public figures and government bodies to account. I share in trust for our Civil Service and local government.
It is a wry thought that the success of the messaging when lockdown came owes something to a person who is now the news story. Sometimes on cases like this, we might trust in our own individual judgements rather than any trial by media.
I try to offer balanced opinions and understand all points of view. It is not always straightforward or easy. I will fight for causes that are just. When needed, I hope to be someone you can trust. All the time I aim to be a representative for everyone, regardless of whether or however they vote.
We will slowly return to some semblance of normality. We must build confidence in our Government and trust in those making decisions which so greatly impact our lives, particularly in these unprecedented times. I continue to do what I can to represent the wide-ranging interests and views of constituents, pursuing decisions that are beneficial for our shared lives.
Constituents are reminded to include their full name, address and telephone number in correspondence. Time allowing, I am pleased to be able to listen directly to those sharing their views over the telephone. Do share your telephone number if this is your preference and indicate in any email.
Thank you for reading this response and for sharing your views.
Yours sincerely,
/Users/athertond/Library/Containers/com.microsoft.Outlook/Data/Library/Caches/Signatures/signature_1502788704 |  |
| |  |
| And the response from my MP on 16:10 - May 28 with 2794 views | Pinewoodblue |
Thank you for your email about the actions of the Prime Minister’s senior advisor, Dominic Cummings.
I want to assure you that I have understood the strength of feeling on this matter, and I have communicated both the scale and nature of the correspondence that I have received to Ministers and those in authority as best I can, and on a daily basis.
Although I would have preferred to have personally responded to every email that I have received, with several hundred to date this is simply not possible. As such, I have released the following general statement about this matter:
I do appreciate entirely why so much of my correspondence has taken the view that Mr Cummings violated the basic lockdown rule to ‘stay home’ — prima facie, he did. I also understand why there is such strong feeling about this, given so many of my constituents have made great sacrifices to spend all of lockdown at home: missing elective surgery; missing loved ones for weeks on end; even missing the opportunity to be at the bedside of those loved ones in their final days, or to attend their funerals. Such people have had to bear the unbearable to comply with exceptional rules for the greater good. I would like to commend everyone who followed the Government’s guidance to stay at home; this was in the national interest and helped to protect the NHS, and the wider community.
As to my personal view, it is clear from all the coverage of Mr Cummings’ statement on Sunday that most commentators accept the principle that exceptions do apply to the lockdown rules, particularly where a child’s health is concerned. The question, of course, is whether it is reasonable to argue that the actions of Mr Cummings were justifiably such an ‘exception’. I am not qualified to consider that question as a lawyer, but I can consider it as a father, and one who faced the same parental worries as Mr Cummings during that fateful final week of March which culminated with his departure for Durham.
In the week leading up to Monday 23rd March, Westminster was already a mini epicentre of the UK pandemic, with a host of MPs, Ministers and some of the most senior scientific and medical government advisors in the country having been struck down with Covid symptoms. On the Monday we imposed the formal lockdown, banning ‘non-essential’ travel. But despite Covid being so obviously rife in Westminster, on Tuesday 24th I attended Treasury Questions and an important statement from the Chancellor (in my role as his PPS) with the Commons still behaving as normal and MPs sitting in close proximity. We didn’t limit access to the Chamber until the following day. By Friday, the Health Secretary himself, my constituency neighbour Matt Hancock, had tested positive for Coronavirus.
Like Mr Cummings, who was surrounded by people with Covid, I assumed that I would soon be showing symptoms. I have four children, including five year old twins, and as Thursday 26th March neared - the date that the Commons rose for Easter - I too was constantly thinking about what would happen if I returned home, developed symptoms and infected my wife, leaving my children stuck with two poorly parents. The question of what to do from a childcare point of view if both my wife and I became sick was not a theoretical one but a profound and primeval parental fear. As it turned out by Thursday 26th I had no symptoms and so I decided to head home to Suffolk and then stay put.
But I was lucky; my home was safe.
In contrast, how would I have felt if my home had been surrounded by a baying mob day and night, with constant threats being sent to me in parallel? With the incessant harassment of his home, no available childcare, and all the pressure of his role, is it so unreasonable to suggest that Mr Cummings acted in the best interests of his autistic four year old son by deciding to take him out of that extraordinary setting? Would any of us, not just fearing infection but suspecting its incapacitating impact was imminent, really have thought it best for a vulnerable son to remain in a property surrounded by angry protestors and in the context of immense personal political strain, when there was an isolated property available on Mr Cummings’ father’s farm, where he would not risk infecting anyone else and yet have familiar childcare (so important in the case of autistic children) close at hand if the worst happened? Reasonable people may disagree, and are entitled to, but I conclude that from the point of view of protecting his child’s best interests, Mr Cummings did act reasonably.
Of course, the whole affair has raised a number of other questions that will be poured over for days to come. I cannot help but feel, however, that the best thing we could now is to move on and ensure we deliver a successful next phase of lockdown: with our children returning cautiously and safely to school; shops reopening to boost our economy; track and trace launching so that we can ease the lockdown whilst protecting against a second peak.
This outbreak has been a major trauma for our nation but better times lie ahead, and if we hold our nerve and stay vigilant, they may be closer than we think.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch about this important matter. As always, please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of assistance.
Regards,
James |  |
| |
| And the response from my MP on 16:18 - May 28 with 2758 views | DublinBlue84 |
| And the response from my MP on 16:10 - May 28 by Pinewoodblue |
Thank you for your email about the actions of the Prime Minister’s senior advisor, Dominic Cummings.
I want to assure you that I have understood the strength of feeling on this matter, and I have communicated both the scale and nature of the correspondence that I have received to Ministers and those in authority as best I can, and on a daily basis.
Although I would have preferred to have personally responded to every email that I have received, with several hundred to date this is simply not possible. As such, I have released the following general statement about this matter:
I do appreciate entirely why so much of my correspondence has taken the view that Mr Cummings violated the basic lockdown rule to ‘stay home’ — prima facie, he did. I also understand why there is such strong feeling about this, given so many of my constituents have made great sacrifices to spend all of lockdown at home: missing elective surgery; missing loved ones for weeks on end; even missing the opportunity to be at the bedside of those loved ones in their final days, or to attend their funerals. Such people have had to bear the unbearable to comply with exceptional rules for the greater good. I would like to commend everyone who followed the Government’s guidance to stay at home; this was in the national interest and helped to protect the NHS, and the wider community.
As to my personal view, it is clear from all the coverage of Mr Cummings’ statement on Sunday that most commentators accept the principle that exceptions do apply to the lockdown rules, particularly where a child’s health is concerned. The question, of course, is whether it is reasonable to argue that the actions of Mr Cummings were justifiably such an ‘exception’. I am not qualified to consider that question as a lawyer, but I can consider it as a father, and one who faced the same parental worries as Mr Cummings during that fateful final week of March which culminated with his departure for Durham.
In the week leading up to Monday 23rd March, Westminster was already a mini epicentre of the UK pandemic, with a host of MPs, Ministers and some of the most senior scientific and medical government advisors in the country having been struck down with Covid symptoms. On the Monday we imposed the formal lockdown, banning ‘non-essential’ travel. But despite Covid being so obviously rife in Westminster, on Tuesday 24th I attended Treasury Questions and an important statement from the Chancellor (in my role as his PPS) with the Commons still behaving as normal and MPs sitting in close proximity. We didn’t limit access to the Chamber until the following day. By Friday, the Health Secretary himself, my constituency neighbour Matt Hancock, had tested positive for Coronavirus.
Like Mr Cummings, who was surrounded by people with Covid, I assumed that I would soon be showing symptoms. I have four children, including five year old twins, and as Thursday 26th March neared - the date that the Commons rose for Easter - I too was constantly thinking about what would happen if I returned home, developed symptoms and infected my wife, leaving my children stuck with two poorly parents. The question of what to do from a childcare point of view if both my wife and I became sick was not a theoretical one but a profound and primeval parental fear. As it turned out by Thursday 26th I had no symptoms and so I decided to head home to Suffolk and then stay put.
But I was lucky; my home was safe.
In contrast, how would I have felt if my home had been surrounded by a baying mob day and night, with constant threats being sent to me in parallel? With the incessant harassment of his home, no available childcare, and all the pressure of his role, is it so unreasonable to suggest that Mr Cummings acted in the best interests of his autistic four year old son by deciding to take him out of that extraordinary setting? Would any of us, not just fearing infection but suspecting its incapacitating impact was imminent, really have thought it best for a vulnerable son to remain in a property surrounded by angry protestors and in the context of immense personal political strain, when there was an isolated property available on Mr Cummings’ father’s farm, where he would not risk infecting anyone else and yet have familiar childcare (so important in the case of autistic children) close at hand if the worst happened? Reasonable people may disagree, and are entitled to, but I conclude that from the point of view of protecting his child’s best interests, Mr Cummings did act reasonably.
Of course, the whole affair has raised a number of other questions that will be poured over for days to come. I cannot help but feel, however, that the best thing we could now is to move on and ensure we deliver a successful next phase of lockdown: with our children returning cautiously and safely to school; shops reopening to boost our economy; track and trace launching so that we can ease the lockdown whilst protecting against a second peak.
This outbreak has been a major trauma for our nation but better times lie ahead, and if we hold our nerve and stay vigilant, they may be closer than we think.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch about this important matter. As always, please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of assistance.
Regards,
James |
Can anyone point to the harassment that Cummings was getting in March?
I do not remember seeing any of it, all I have seen is pictures of the last couple of weeks used to justify it. |  |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 16:18 - May 28 with 2749 views | Steve_M |
To paraphrase: "Blah, blah, blah. I hope you are so bored reading this you won't notice I didn't answer any of your points". |  |
| |
| And the response from my MP on 16:39 - May 28 with 2666 views | Pinewoodblue |
| And the response from my MP on 16:18 - May 28 by DublinBlue84 |
Can anyone point to the harassment that Cummings was getting in March?
I do not remember seeing any of it, all I have seen is pictures of the last couple of weeks used to justify it. |
I only remember a Police presence after he gave his feeble explanation in the garden of number 10.
I liked the bit about worrying about catching covid-19 at Westminster. Like many we took unilateral action to isolate earlier, in our case from 15th March, he could have done the same.
. | |
| |
| And the response from my MP on 16:59 - May 28 with 2598 views | GeoffSentence |
| And the response from my MP on 16:10 - May 28 by Pinewoodblue |
Thank you for your email about the actions of the Prime Minister’s senior advisor, Dominic Cummings.
I want to assure you that I have understood the strength of feeling on this matter, and I have communicated both the scale and nature of the correspondence that I have received to Ministers and those in authority as best I can, and on a daily basis.
Although I would have preferred to have personally responded to every email that I have received, with several hundred to date this is simply not possible. As such, I have released the following general statement about this matter:
I do appreciate entirely why so much of my correspondence has taken the view that Mr Cummings violated the basic lockdown rule to ‘stay home’ — prima facie, he did. I also understand why there is such strong feeling about this, given so many of my constituents have made great sacrifices to spend all of lockdown at home: missing elective surgery; missing loved ones for weeks on end; even missing the opportunity to be at the bedside of those loved ones in their final days, or to attend their funerals. Such people have had to bear the unbearable to comply with exceptional rules for the greater good. I would like to commend everyone who followed the Government’s guidance to stay at home; this was in the national interest and helped to protect the NHS, and the wider community.
As to my personal view, it is clear from all the coverage of Mr Cummings’ statement on Sunday that most commentators accept the principle that exceptions do apply to the lockdown rules, particularly where a child’s health is concerned. The question, of course, is whether it is reasonable to argue that the actions of Mr Cummings were justifiably such an ‘exception’. I am not qualified to consider that question as a lawyer, but I can consider it as a father, and one who faced the same parental worries as Mr Cummings during that fateful final week of March which culminated with his departure for Durham.
In the week leading up to Monday 23rd March, Westminster was already a mini epicentre of the UK pandemic, with a host of MPs, Ministers and some of the most senior scientific and medical government advisors in the country having been struck down with Covid symptoms. On the Monday we imposed the formal lockdown, banning ‘non-essential’ travel. But despite Covid being so obviously rife in Westminster, on Tuesday 24th I attended Treasury Questions and an important statement from the Chancellor (in my role as his PPS) with the Commons still behaving as normal and MPs sitting in close proximity. We didn’t limit access to the Chamber until the following day. By Friday, the Health Secretary himself, my constituency neighbour Matt Hancock, had tested positive for Coronavirus.
Like Mr Cummings, who was surrounded by people with Covid, I assumed that I would soon be showing symptoms. I have four children, including five year old twins, and as Thursday 26th March neared - the date that the Commons rose for Easter - I too was constantly thinking about what would happen if I returned home, developed symptoms and infected my wife, leaving my children stuck with two poorly parents. The question of what to do from a childcare point of view if both my wife and I became sick was not a theoretical one but a profound and primeval parental fear. As it turned out by Thursday 26th I had no symptoms and so I decided to head home to Suffolk and then stay put.
But I was lucky; my home was safe.
In contrast, how would I have felt if my home had been surrounded by a baying mob day and night, with constant threats being sent to me in parallel? With the incessant harassment of his home, no available childcare, and all the pressure of his role, is it so unreasonable to suggest that Mr Cummings acted in the best interests of his autistic four year old son by deciding to take him out of that extraordinary setting? Would any of us, not just fearing infection but suspecting its incapacitating impact was imminent, really have thought it best for a vulnerable son to remain in a property surrounded by angry protestors and in the context of immense personal political strain, when there was an isolated property available on Mr Cummings’ father’s farm, where he would not risk infecting anyone else and yet have familiar childcare (so important in the case of autistic children) close at hand if the worst happened? Reasonable people may disagree, and are entitled to, but I conclude that from the point of view of protecting his child’s best interests, Mr Cummings did act reasonably.
Of course, the whole affair has raised a number of other questions that will be poured over for days to come. I cannot help but feel, however, that the best thing we could now is to move on and ensure we deliver a successful next phase of lockdown: with our children returning cautiously and safely to school; shops reopening to boost our economy; track and trace launching so that we can ease the lockdown whilst protecting against a second peak.
This outbreak has been a major trauma for our nation but better times lie ahead, and if we hold our nerve and stay vigilant, they may be closer than we think.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch about this important matter. As always, please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of assistance.
Regards,
James |
I got that one too. |  |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:05 - May 28 with 2586 views | giant_stow |
This is all just going to go away isn’t it.
Please Tory voters: remember how it feels now when it comes to election time. |  |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:10 - May 28 with 2551 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:05 - May 28 by giant_stow |
This is all just going to go away isn’t it.
Please Tory voters: remember how it feels now when it comes to election time. |
To be fair it is how they cope with the economy that will matter come the next election. | |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:14 - May 28 with 2534 views | Darth_Koont |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:05 - May 28 by giant_stow |
This is all just going to go away isn’t it.
Please Tory voters: remember how it feels now when it comes to election time. |
I hope you remember how it feels too. Next time you try to spin your narrative about Labour or Scottish politics.
Facts and honesty from now on, please. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:14 - May 28 with 2537 views | J2BLUE |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:05 - May 28 by giant_stow |
This is all just going to go away isn’t it.
Please Tory voters: remember how it feels now when it comes to election time. |
Do many Tories really care? MPs back whichever side they think will help them. I don't believe the vast majority of Tory voters will care in the new age of politics where the crime is assessed based on whether the perpetrator is 'one of us' or not. |  |
| |
| And the response from my MP on 17:41 - May 28 with 2468 views | jeera |
| And the response from my MP on 16:18 - May 28 by DublinBlue84 |
Can anyone point to the harassment that Cummings was getting in March?
I do not remember seeing any of it, all I have seen is pictures of the last couple of weeks used to justify it. |
I didn't understand that part either.
Maybe that's something we didn't know about. I wonder what those people outside his house during lockdown were protesting about back in March.
I am also confused about this: "questions that will be poured over for days to come".
What's going to be poured over the questions then? Some kind of liquid but I don't know how that works. Maybe it's a metaphor. |  |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 18:03 - May 28 with 2424 views | giant_stow |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:14 - May 28 by Darth_Koont |
I hope you remember how it feels too. Next time you try to spin your narrative about Labour or Scottish politics.
Facts and honesty from now on, please. |
You'll get over your misguided support of corbyn one day mr, but its clearly giing to be a long hall. Hang in there. | |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 18:05 - May 28 with 2422 views | giant_stow |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 17:14 - May 28 by J2BLUE |
Do many Tories really care? MPs back whichever side they think will help them. I don't believe the vast majority of Tory voters will care in the new age of politics where the crime is assessed based on whether the perpetrator is 'one of us' or not. |
Some clearly do, but do they care enough? Maybe not. | |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 18:28 - May 28 with 2386 views | bluejacko |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 18:05 - May 28 by giant_stow |
Some clearly do, but do they care enough? Maybe not. |
Does anyone care about Kinnock driving to London from Wales for his dad’s birthday after all their lockdown is stricter than ours or the Labour mp that attended a funeral with allegedly 100 people in attendance?
Just look about and you will read a lot more than some bloke isolating in Cumbria, | | | |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 18:36 - May 28 with 2367 views | sparks |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 18:28 - May 28 by bluejacko |
Does anyone care about Kinnock driving to London from Wales for his dad’s birthday after all their lockdown is stricter than ours or the Labour mp that attended a funeral with allegedly 100 people in attendance?
Just look about and you will read a lot more than some bloke isolating in Cumbria, |
What has that got to do with this thread? Nothing. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 19:23 - May 28 with 2292 views | Darth_Koont |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 18:03 - May 28 by giant_stow |
You'll get over your misguided support of corbyn one day mr, but its clearly giing to be a long hall. Hang in there. |
You’ll have to engage with facts and honesty first ... yeah, that’s not going to happen, is it? | |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 19:38 - May 28 with 2260 views | Mullet |
I've just written a massively long and detailed one to mine. But he is on record saying that we shouldn't have locked down at all. I'll be intrigued to see if and how he responds. |  |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 20:09 - May 28 with 2209 views | NBVJohn |
Not great but better than my MP Dr Luke Evans could muster.
Mine was also a standard response, but with no clear, timebound commitment to respond further.
I got some real belters such as ‘’no one wants trial by media’’ Erm, actually I agree, but it would be less likely to happen if your party carried out a proper investigation.
He also wrote, ‘I get it’’ in relation to the anger of his constituents, and that in itself was irritating enough.
I’ve responded to tell him that I think he needs to do better. I’m not holding my breath. | | | |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 20:16 - May 28 with 2195 views | jeera |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 20:09 - May 28 by NBVJohn |
Not great but better than my MP Dr Luke Evans could muster.
Mine was also a standard response, but with no clear, timebound commitment to respond further.
I got some real belters such as ‘’no one wants trial by media’’ Erm, actually I agree, but it would be less likely to happen if your party carried out a proper investigation.
He also wrote, ‘I get it’’ in relation to the anger of his constituents, and that in itself was irritating enough.
I’ve responded to tell him that I think he needs to do better. I’m not holding my breath. |
There's been a few of these 'trial by media' type responses then.
Completely ignoring how patronising that is to assume that the public whose noses are put out are all being media led.
Sod the media then Mr MP, what about the public wanting something to be done about matey flouting the rules? | |
| |
| And the response from my MP on 20:29 - May 28 with 2160 views | Swansea_Blue |
| And the response from my MP on 16:10 - May 28 by Pinewoodblue |
Thank you for your email about the actions of the Prime Minister’s senior advisor, Dominic Cummings.
I want to assure you that I have understood the strength of feeling on this matter, and I have communicated both the scale and nature of the correspondence that I have received to Ministers and those in authority as best I can, and on a daily basis.
Although I would have preferred to have personally responded to every email that I have received, with several hundred to date this is simply not possible. As such, I have released the following general statement about this matter:
I do appreciate entirely why so much of my correspondence has taken the view that Mr Cummings violated the basic lockdown rule to ‘stay home’ — prima facie, he did. I also understand why there is such strong feeling about this, given so many of my constituents have made great sacrifices to spend all of lockdown at home: missing elective surgery; missing loved ones for weeks on end; even missing the opportunity to be at the bedside of those loved ones in their final days, or to attend their funerals. Such people have had to bear the unbearable to comply with exceptional rules for the greater good. I would like to commend everyone who followed the Government’s guidance to stay at home; this was in the national interest and helped to protect the NHS, and the wider community.
As to my personal view, it is clear from all the coverage of Mr Cummings’ statement on Sunday that most commentators accept the principle that exceptions do apply to the lockdown rules, particularly where a child’s health is concerned. The question, of course, is whether it is reasonable to argue that the actions of Mr Cummings were justifiably such an ‘exception’. I am not qualified to consider that question as a lawyer, but I can consider it as a father, and one who faced the same parental worries as Mr Cummings during that fateful final week of March which culminated with his departure for Durham.
In the week leading up to Monday 23rd March, Westminster was already a mini epicentre of the UK pandemic, with a host of MPs, Ministers and some of the most senior scientific and medical government advisors in the country having been struck down with Covid symptoms. On the Monday we imposed the formal lockdown, banning ‘non-essential’ travel. But despite Covid being so obviously rife in Westminster, on Tuesday 24th I attended Treasury Questions and an important statement from the Chancellor (in my role as his PPS) with the Commons still behaving as normal and MPs sitting in close proximity. We didn’t limit access to the Chamber until the following day. By Friday, the Health Secretary himself, my constituency neighbour Matt Hancock, had tested positive for Coronavirus.
Like Mr Cummings, who was surrounded by people with Covid, I assumed that I would soon be showing symptoms. I have four children, including five year old twins, and as Thursday 26th March neared - the date that the Commons rose for Easter - I too was constantly thinking about what would happen if I returned home, developed symptoms and infected my wife, leaving my children stuck with two poorly parents. The question of what to do from a childcare point of view if both my wife and I became sick was not a theoretical one but a profound and primeval parental fear. As it turned out by Thursday 26th I had no symptoms and so I decided to head home to Suffolk and then stay put.
But I was lucky; my home was safe.
In contrast, how would I have felt if my home had been surrounded by a baying mob day and night, with constant threats being sent to me in parallel? With the incessant harassment of his home, no available childcare, and all the pressure of his role, is it so unreasonable to suggest that Mr Cummings acted in the best interests of his autistic four year old son by deciding to take him out of that extraordinary setting? Would any of us, not just fearing infection but suspecting its incapacitating impact was imminent, really have thought it best for a vulnerable son to remain in a property surrounded by angry protestors and in the context of immense personal political strain, when there was an isolated property available on Mr Cummings’ father’s farm, where he would not risk infecting anyone else and yet have familiar childcare (so important in the case of autistic children) close at hand if the worst happened? Reasonable people may disagree, and are entitled to, but I conclude that from the point of view of protecting his child’s best interests, Mr Cummings did act reasonably.
Of course, the whole affair has raised a number of other questions that will be poured over for days to come. I cannot help but feel, however, that the best thing we could now is to move on and ensure we deliver a successful next phase of lockdown: with our children returning cautiously and safely to school; shops reopening to boost our economy; track and trace launching so that we can ease the lockdown whilst protecting against a second peak.
This outbreak has been a major trauma for our nation but better times lie ahead, and if we hold our nerve and stay vigilant, they may be closer than we think.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch about this important matter. As always, please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of assistance.
Regards,
James |
What a load of bollox. There was no "baying mob" outside his house when he was flaunting the rules. How can they push this stuff out with a straight face and clear conscience? That's just a verbose version of Cumming's excuses and equally irrelevant.
They're idiots. If they'd admitted that what he'd done wasn't what was being asked of the rest of us and apologise profusely they could have killed this ages ago. They probably could have done that, still doubled down on him not resigning, yet escaped much of the adverse attention. |  |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 20:34 - May 28 with 2134 views | factual_blue |
I was finally stirred to send hancock an e-mail
Dear Mr Hancock
I am writing to you, as one of your constituents, about Dominic Cummings.
I am appalled by the whole saga.
He is, apparently, a highly valued advisor the Prime Minister, a role which I would have thought requires great qualities of judgment and intellect. Mr Cummings’s behaviour in this story shows a complete absence either quality.
He sets off, when ill, with his family on a journey of more than two hundred and fifty miles. Assuming he was using the Range Rover we see on the TV news, that’s a car which, even with a full tank of petrol (Mr Cummings said in his statement it was petrol) that journey is going to leave him, at best, with a completely empty fuel tank at the other end of the journey. That seems to me inherently improbable. He had with him his young son. A journey of four or five hours with a child of pre-school age in which a stop for the toilet is not required strikes me as even more inherently improbable.
The excursion to Barnard Castle was plain daft. How you, as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, can accept that this sixty mile round trip was an acceptable way for Mr Cummings to ‘test his eyesight’ is astonishing. Do any of your highly-skilled senior medical experts at the Department, or at Public Health England, or in the NHS, counsel such action?
I note, without comment, that the trip to Barnard Castle took place on Mrs Cummings’s birthday. I note it without comment because it speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
I also note that at the end of March Mrs Cummings (under her professional name) wrote in The Spectator about how Dominic Cummings was confined to bed. It’s a poor show when a husband implies his wife is a liar.
Sad to say, the government’s response to all of this has been even more dreadful.
After issuing ‘an instruction’ that we all had to obey, you yourself said that Mr Cummings actions were in line with this. To think people will believe there is any leeway with an instruction is either stupid on your part, or conveys that you think people in general are stupid.
I am at a loss why the government, to use a phrase from one of the journalists, ‘circled the wagons’ when this story broke. By doing so, you’ve made a rod for your own backs, and are trapped in a circus ring, performing poorly-executed semantic and intellectual somersaults to defend Mr Cummings’s ex post facto rationalisation of his conduct. His explanation, in other words, was driven by his conduct; his conduct was not determined by a rational process beforehand.
Even more sad to say is your own part in this. As a constituent I am even more embarrassed by your personal part in defending Mr Cummings than in your uncertain (at best!) performance as Secretary of State.
I think Emily Maitlis captured the national mood perfectly when she said public mood was ‘one of fury, contempt and anguish. The prime minister knows all this. But despite the resignation of one minister, growing unease from his backbenchers, a dramatic early warning from the polls and a deep national disquiet, Boris Johnson has chosen to ignore it.’
I — and I know many others — can’t believe or trust anything you or your Cabinet colleagues advise or instruct us to do any longer. I don’t think that presages well for the test and trace programme, or the much-heralded App. By your defensiveness you have lost all credibility.
Yours faithfully |  |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 20:49 - May 28 with 2102 views | factual_blue |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 20:09 - May 28 by NBVJohn |
Not great but better than my MP Dr Luke Evans could muster.
Mine was also a standard response, but with no clear, timebound commitment to respond further.
I got some real belters such as ‘’no one wants trial by media’’ Erm, actually I agree, but it would be less likely to happen if your party carried out a proper investigation.
He also wrote, ‘I get it’’ in relation to the anger of his constituents, and that in itself was irritating enough.
I’ve responded to tell him that I think he needs to do better. I’m not holding my breath. |
You're not holding your breath. Dr Luke Evans, on the other hand, should. | |
| |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 22:13 - May 28 with 2023 views | jaykay |
| Reply from my MP to an email (and chase) about Cummins on 18:28 - May 28 by bluejacko |
Does anyone care about Kinnock driving to London from Wales for his dad’s birthday after all their lockdown is stricter than ours or the Labour mp that attended a funeral with allegedly 100 people in attendance?
Just look about and you will read a lot more than some bloke isolating in Cumbria, |
yeah but no but yeah but nooooo |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
