Don't do as I do, do as I say.

[xsnaggle]

So in this version, first Cummings' wife who had Covid drove their son, who did not to stay with Cummings' parents in Durham then as soon as Cummings discovered that he had the symptoms instead of isolating in London he drove to Durham so that they could all be together.

That sounds much better.

The article said that they left quarantine to enter "lockdown London". If that's not referencing London, then what is it referencing?!

May I ask how claimed to know that they have a home in Durham if you had only read the Spectator article? Btw, I have read several articles, seen the briefing today and read the defence from Tory MPs and Cummings himself and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they have a home in Durham.

Also, why did you base all your opinions on a biased article and ignore the one from the OP that the thread is based on (and continue to concentrate on that particular article) when the rest of us were telling you about the current information from other sources which put that article into more perspective.

You were massively wrong with your presumptions about them not travelling together, posters tried to tell you that other sources showed that you were incorrect... yet you refused to budge and instead made it about people not understanding what you were saying because you were talking about the specific article written by one of the people involved who didn't want to incriminate themselves.

It's becoming quite typical, really. (I'm having a slight "pop" at you with this one... I hope that's ok?)

I can see nothing in that article that mentions London or 'lockdown london'. I've read it several times now. Can you point it out to me please?

I mentioned Durham because other in this thread mentioned it, no other reason.

No one who responded to my post has referred to another article that I may not have or should have read. Not one! They merely comment on my post and assume knowledge for God knows what reason and reply to things that aren't there because that's what suits their argument.
I never made any presumption and I never mentioned anyone travelling anywhere whether alone or with anyone else. If I did please show me where?

Yes I was talking about one particular article, you got that bit right, so why has everyone insisted on berating me for things that are not in it and to which I never referred?

Personally I don't give a toss what he may or may not have done, it doesn't and won't affect my life, but I never defended him anywhere. Again if I have please show me. I actually said something to the effect of "whatever the circumstances what he did was probably not very clever, but again everyone, you included choose to disregard that because it doesn't suit your argument.

I never made any claim or assertion so how can I have been "Massively wrong"? By the way, is massively wrong somehow worse than wrong?