Durham
#21
(05-23-2020, 01:02 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 12:31 PM)Neil Parsley Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 07:39 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Perfectly acceptable....

Expect Olympic standard gymnastic excuses  

As expected, the dim remain left is all over this non-story.

Firstly, I suggest you read the emergency Regulations both as they were and the current version in force. Here's the old version, which is relevant for our discussion here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

Secondly, I will refer you to Regulation 6(2)(d) and Regulation 6(2)(m). The former says (inter alia) that leaving home "to provide care or assistance" is 'reasonable excuse' for the purposes of Reg 6(1). The latter says that leaving home "to avoid injury or illness" is 'reasonable excuse' within Reg 6(1). Both of these apply to the transporting of the Cummings children to be minded by grandparents whilst the parents are ill.

So they could travel two hundreds miles with one or more ill was ok. 
Your suggesting that grand parents should be looking after possibly ill children is ok. Was this not against the rules set out? 

Doesn’t it also state that if both parents are ill they should get in touch with their local authority Hub for support?

Thirdly, the examples in Reg 6(2)(a) to (m) are not exhaustive and they are merely that - examples. There are myriad other situations which could have been deemed 'reasonable excuse'. Therefore, even if the Cummings's behaviour was not reasonable as per Reg 6(2)(d) and (m) I think it is reasonable excuse to take your children to be looked after when both parents have an illness that could prevent them discharging their obligations as parents.

Excuses excuses, millions have abided by the rules set out.

Fourthly, Jenny Harries is on film at one of the briefings saying that if you have adults unable to look after small children, 'That is an exceptional circumstance' such that action to obviate this will be 'reasonable excuse'. 

And Boris Johnson said you should not use your Grandparents for childcare 

Fifthly, guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing in April said that moving 'between households' is permitted. However, to caveat this, the links to the document are all now dead links so whether this is still seen as permissible is not certain. Even if it isn't, Cummings is still exonerated by all of the foregoing.

This was March and you can’t back your excuses up.

There's really nothing to see here apart from the remain media and the remain left attacking again because they can't get over the fact we've left the EU.

What is to see is you trying to make excuses.

What is to see is me citing the actual law as applies in this area instead of relying on the Daily Mirror and a reporter who has clearly never even read the Regulations in question.

Why don't you read that actual law and links (where applicable)?

I also must have missed your condemnation of Tahir Ali and Stephen Kinnock, who actually DID break the Regulations and who are actually elected public officials whose behaviour should be exemplary.

As I said, I'm done here. Take it easy.

As I said, I'm done here. Too many blinkered idiots
Reply
#22
(05-23-2020, 12:39 PM)Pickle Rick Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 12:28 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 11:16 AM)Pickle Rick Wrote: Fyi - from Kay Burley on Twitter also Sky News etc also reporting no 10 sources...

No 10: ‘At no stage was he (Cummings) or his family spoken to by the police about this matter, as is being reported.’ https://t.co/u44ddZYUNY

Just to add as it's quite important, this directly contradicts the Durham Constabulary statement which states that his family were spoken to about it.

And no 10 may be spinning/lying/mistaken. Reporters are going to report what they say though as its their job just as it is to report on accusations re Cummings which may also be mistaken etc. I just don't like the 'fake news media' propaganda stuff attacks on reporters we have spouted these days. 

Regardless of the police thing, he probably should not have travelled under the lockdown rules anyway. But I don't know what other child care options he had so as a parent I won't be too quick to judge.

If they want to show impartiality, they should note that the Durham Constabulary statement directly contradicts with No. 10s statement.

Criticism of the media in recent times has been as a result of "journalists" wanting to be first and say gotcha. Kuenssberg has been one of the worst offenders in this regard, as has Kay Burley. Personally, if I were in charge of Sky News and the BBC, I'd ban all employees from using Twitter to relay news.
Reply
#23
(05-23-2020, 01:02 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 12:31 PM)Neil Parsley Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 07:39 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Perfectly acceptable....

Expect Olympic standard gymnastic excuses  

As expected, the dim remain left is all over this non-story.

Firstly, I suggest you read the emergency Regulations both as they were and the current version in force. Here's the old version, which is relevant for our discussion here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

Secondly, I will refer you to Regulation 6(2)(d) and Regulation 6(2)(m). The former says (inter alia) that leaving home "to provide care or assistance" is 'reasonable excuse' for the purposes of Reg 6(1). The latter says that leaving home "to avoid injury or illness" is 'reasonable excuse' within Reg 6(1). Both of these apply to the transporting of the Cummings children to be minded by grandparents whilst the parents are ill.

So they could travel two hundreds miles with one or more ill was ok. 
Your suggesting that grand parents should be looking after possibly ill children is ok. Was this not against the rules set out? 

Doesn’t it also state that if both parents are ill they should get in touch with their local authority Hub for support?

Thirdly, the examples in Reg 6(2)(a) to (m) are not exhaustive and they are merely that - examples. There are myriad other situations which could have been deemed 'reasonable excuse'. Therefore, even if the Cummings's behaviour was not reasonable as per Reg 6(2)(d) and (m) I think it is reasonable excuse to take your children to be looked after when both parents have an illness that could prevent them discharging their obligations as parents.

Excuses excuses, millions have abided by the rules set out.

Fourthly, Jenny Harries is on film at one of the briefings saying that if you have adults unable to look after small children, 'That is an exceptional circumstance' such that action to obviate this will be 'reasonable excuse'. 

And Boris Johnson said you should not use your Grandparents for childcare 

Fifthly, guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing in April said that moving 'between households' is permitted. However, to caveat this, the links to the document are all now dead links so whether this is still seen as permissible is not certain. Even if it isn't, Cummings is still exonerated by all of the foregoing.

This was March and you can’t back your excuses up.

There's really nothing to see here apart from the remain media and the remain left attacking again because they can't get over the fact we've left the EU.

What is to see is you trying to make excuses.

(05-23-2020, 01:01 PM)Pickle Rick Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 12:54 PM)Neil Parsley Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 12:43 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 11:16 AM)Pickle Rick Wrote: No. It is Trumpian 'fake news media' cries when  they report what you don't like and praise media you do. LK is going to report what no 10 sources say as its her job - she isn't saying she believes them but she has to report it as she had to also report the attacks on Cummings. If you are concerned about bias media you would attack the Guardian more often than the Beeb but you complain selectively and attack unbias media. It detracts from the debate and just appears like Trumpish propaganda. If it turns out there are inaccuracies in the Guardian report, will you condemn them as client journalist / fake news? I know you won't. 
I don't just expect the media to report my views and I prefer to hear all sides of the debate including government and opposition sources etc. Saying the Beeb or LK is a government spokesperson when they quote the government sources is typical Trumpishness. If the story from No 10 has changed since and you've seen that it is because that has been reported which is again what you want reporters to do. The inconsistency shows no 10 in a bad light not the 'fake news media'.

Fyi - from Kay Burley on Twitter also Sky News etc also reporting no 10 sources...

No 10: ‘At no stage was he (Cummings) or his family spoken to by the police about this matter, as is being reported.’ https://t.co/u44ddZYUNY

Reporters doing their jobs. What no 10 says may be wrong or what the Guardian says may be wrong but they are reporting both. Not their fault if no10 or the Guardian are wrong/lying.

I don’t think it’s correct to pigeonhole me as an avid Guardian reader who only posts stories from that media outlet. I’ve linked to Telegraph, Mail, Reuter’s, ffs the BBC yesterday (and numerous times previously and not in a negative way), Sky etc over the last six months. Heck I’ve even listened to the Farage show on LBC when working late. 

I don’t rate Kuensberg as a journalist whether she worked for BBC, Sky, ITV etc because she is far too accepting of ‘sources close to’ and repeats their message without scrutiny she has done this numerous times and it’s actually undermining trust in her and the BBC for many people. The point about the screen shot is she is directly replying to another journalists story with what can be read as a rebuttal. Why? By all means repeat what sources say on the BBC to the nation alongside a balanced news article  but it seems very odd to be replying directly to another journalist with a quote from those mysterious sources we have become very familiar with. If a reporters job is just to regurgitate what someone tells them without question then I am mistaken.

Journalist A gets a 'scoop'.

Journalist B then gets a scoop on the scoop by getting a denial.

It's how journalism works and stories unfold. This isn't difficult. It doesn't make LK a 'Tory stooge'. Anyone thinking otherwise is an idiot.

I think I am done with here. There's no football to talk about and the levels of idiocy and bitterness from the usual suspects is on Level 10.

I wish you all well (because I am not bitter or twisted), hope you all stay safe and away from the virus and that we will be celebrating our promotion soon.

The football will be back soon and the main board has music, recipes and nature talk as well. You could just ignore the politics board as many do...

This I side of the board has never been busier for the last three years.
I wasn't disparaging it,  just pointing out many do not use it and that's an option for those that just like footy and mumsnet.
Reply
#24
In response to some points made...

[Image: EYshSeHXYAA0MhT?format=jpg&name=900x900]

From Jenny Harris 

[Image: EYshuPAXkAI3Kg7?format=jpg&name=medium]
Reply
#25
(05-23-2020, 12:31 PM)Neil Parsley Wrote:
(05-23-2020, 07:39 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Perfectly acceptable....

Expect Olympic standard gymnastic excuses  

As expected, the dim remain left is all over this non-story.

Firstly, I suggest you read the emergency Regulations both as they were and the current version in force. Here's the old version, which is relevant for our discussion here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

Secondly, I will refer you to Regulation 6(2)(d) and Regulation 6(2)(m). The former says (inter alia) that leaving home "to provide care or assistance" is 'reasonable excuse' for the purposes of Reg 6(1). The latter says that leaving home "to avoid injury or illness" is 'reasonable excuse' within Reg 6(1). Both of these apply to the transporting of the Cummings children to be minded by grandparents whilst the parents are ill.

Thirdly, the examples in Reg 6(2)(a) to (m) are not exhaustive and they are merely that - examples. There are myriad other situations which could have been deemed 'reasonable excuse'. Therefore, even if the Cummings's behaviour was not reasonable as per Reg 6(2)(d) and (m) I think it is reasonable excuse to take your children to be looked after when both parents have an illness that could prevent them discharging their obligations as parents.

Fourthly, Jenny Harries is on film at one of the briefings saying that if you have adults unable to look after small children, 'That is an exceptional circumstance' such that action to obviate this will be 'reasonable excuse'. EDIT: here is her advice on what parents can and should do if they fall ill - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/...s-17973790. This is a reasonable excuse to NOT stay within your household group

Fifthly, guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing in April said that moving 'between households' is permitted. However, to caveat this, the links to the document are all now dead links so whether this is still seen as permissible is not certain. Even if it isn't, Cummings is still exonerated by all of the foregoing.

There's really nothing to see here apart from the remain media and the remain left attacking again because they can't get over the fact we've left the EU.

My understanding of the guidance quoted is that these circumstances apply when you do not have symptoms. From what I have read (and correct me if this is wrong) is that the man and wife both had symptoms at the time of the trip across the country. Anyone who has driven any distance with a 4 year old will know there were stops, I hope they didn’t pass it on to too many people.

The timing if the guidance from Harries regarding child care is suspect.

His wife wrote about their experience of cv19 in the spectator, this seems, to contradict some of the excuses and also previous statements from no 10.

For me it’s not about politics, I just want things to go back to normal sooner rather than later. The more idiots like this, the longer that will be.
Reply
#26
He should have addressed that to PM Johnson.

[Image: EYsaWi7XQAAvR54?format=jpg&name=small]
Reply
#27
Without all of the usual defend the govt, attack the govt bullshit that goes on. Look beyond the story to see the smoke and mirrors from this Teflon individual, he went to Durham when he could have gone to other relatives in London, he could have even asked their nanny to care for the child, or if they didn’t have one, hire one.

What is concerning is those that will spring to his defence and it all gets lost in clauses and subsections whilst he doesn’t care because he doesn’t care about anything. The current leadership haven’t got the bollox to deal with himso start quoting about the safety of a toddler and the love of a parent.

Bullshit bought and swallowed
Reply
#28
baggy1Without all of the usual defend the govt, attack the govt bullshit that goes on. Look beyond the story to see the smoke and mirrors from this Teflon individual, he went to Durham when he could have gone to other relatives in London, he could have even asked their nanny to care for the child, or if they didn’t have one, hire one.

What is concerning is those that will spring to his defence and it all gets lost in clauses and subsections whilst he doesn’t care because he doesn’t care about anything. The current leadership haven’t got the bollox to deal with himso start quoting about the safety of a toddler and the love of a parent.

Bullshit bought and swallowed

It’s truly shocking the lengths this cabal of charlatans are going to to defend the indefensible. If only they had been as quick to react to the unfolding pandemic as they are to protect an unelected and unaccountable advisor who wields so much power and influence. Ironic given the previous bullshit by the same people regarding taking back control from the unaccountable elite.
Reply
#29
When he resigns they can blame the hostile fake news media
Reply
#30
If this article is true then I am going to be really pissed off
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)