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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elwood Blues

How do you know they weren't that ill?(

---

I suppose it is possible that she was so ill he rushed home.( shouldnt he have been at home isolating for 14 days anyway.). He then got home put his sick wife in a car after arranging travel and child care and drove 260 miles. All done within 24 hours when he eventually collapses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

You seemed almost eager to put a different, more sympathetic, interpretation on things to what was being widely accepted. I was prepared to admit I was wrong. Now we have had a briefing in which a Government Minister did nothing whatsoever to suggest that Cummings' wife and child had not travelled with him to Durham - you were wrong, how about admitting it?

---

I never said I was right, I only ever said in that article there was no mention of where she was or that they had both traveled.
I also said that whatever the truth it was not the best thing he could have done. It wasn't.
At no time have I said he didn't travel or that she didn't but people misread what I wrote and assumed that was what I was saying. Personally I don't give a toss one way or the other, the biggest problem was today that this completely dominated questions on the government briefing to the detrement of other things more relevant to you and I that may have been asked.
As someone who likes to write for the public domain I would think that you could be able to read what is actually written without building in a meaning that isn't there. Perhaps it's you that is biased, in the reading, rather than me in writing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloo

Remember, if you get the virus stay at home - unless you care about your family or have common sense.

---

Indeed. Echoes of Rees-Mogg and Grenfell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

It's actually based on the fact she is a well known tory sympathiser

It's an open secret

---

Looks like others agree with you:

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg is facing criticism after appearing to quickly jump to the defence of the Prime Minister’s top adviser following reports he flouted lockdown rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

I never said I was right, I only ever said in that article there was no mention of where she was or that they had both traveled.
I also said that whatever the truth it was not the best thing he could have done. It wasn't.
At no time have I said he didn't travel or that she didn't but people misread what I wrote and assumed that was what I was saying. Personally I don't give a toss one way or the other, the biggest problem was today that this completely dominated questions on the government briefing to the detrement of other things more relevant to you and I that may have been asked.
As someone who likes to write for the public domain I would think that you could be able to read what is actually written without building in a meaning that isn't there. Perhaps it's you that is biased, in the reading, rather than me in writing?

---

You wrote this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the way the article read to me as that Mrs Cummings and son were already in Durham and he drove there to be with them. She says, 'would have to come home' like my Mrs used to say 'when are you coming home' when I worked away.
He drove to Durham to care for her I understood, which most men would tend to do for their wife. Whether that was right or wrong is another matter.

Who wouldn't drive 264 miles to Durham to be with his wife looks remarkably like a different, more sympathetic, interpretation on things to what was being widely accepted to me. Still we all live and learn.

I have to say though that your argument that this distracted from the core of today's government briefing did make me chuckle. Which bit of the Daily Coronavirus briefing that Grant Schapps took up prime time television by talking about the government's transport policy, a new station in Fleetwood or the widening of the A66 did you think got most overlooked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

You wrote this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the way the article read to me as that Mrs Cummings and son were already in Durham and he drove there to be with them. She says, 'would have to come home' like my Mrs used to say 'when are you coming home' when I worked away.
He drove to Durham to care for her I understood, which most men would tend to do for their wife. Whether that was right or wrong is another matter.

Who wouldn't drive 264 miles to Durham to be with his wife looks remarkably like a different, more sympathetic, interpretation on things to what was being widely accepted to me. Still we all live and learn.

I have to say though that your argument that this distracted from the core of today's government briefing did make me chuckle. Which bit of the Daily Coronavirus briefing that Grant Schapps took up prime time television by talking about the government's transport policy, a new station in Fleetwood or the widening of the A66 did you think got most overlooked?

---

What I said may have been sympathetic, but again, I was only reacting to that article, without any knowledge of any other reports on the subject. Why does no one actually grasp that? Becuuas it doesn't suit their argument???

As for the briefing, each minister that gets stood up there talks about his own brief, and its often a deflection, but the information from the clinicians is normally insightful and the questions can probe the numbers and the information that drives decisions. From your comment I get the impression you are implying that it isn't relevant to Wales. In which case should we only listen to the Wales briefing If the people on here did do that we wouldn't be having this conversation because its not relevant to Wales. You can't have it both ways can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

I suppose it is possible that she was so ill he rushed home.( shouldnt he have been at home isolating for 14 days anyway.). He then got home put his sick wife in a car after arranging travel and child care and drove 260 miles. All done within 24 hours when he eventually collapses.

---

Think he may well have to clarify the time line a bit more (ok a lot more) but it is perfectly feasible to have made the arrangements and driven to Durham from London in 24 hours.

Whether he should have done is a matter for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

What I said may have been sympathetic, but again, I was only reacting to that article, without any knowledge of any other reports on the subject. Why does no one actually grasp that? Becuuas it doesn't suit their argument???

As for the briefing, each minister that gets stood up there talks about his own brief, and its often a deflection, but the information from the clinicians is normally insightful and the questions can probe the numbers and the information that drives decisions. From your comment I get the impression you are implying that it isn't relevant to Wales. In which case should we only listen to the Wales briefing If the people on here did do that we wouldn't be having this conversation because its not relevant to Wales. You can't have it both ways can you?

---

I had sympathy with you, but others then pointed you in other directions and, rather than admitting you were wrong, you doubled down and insisted you were right based on the one, solitary, article you read.

You are now attempting to move the argument to a Wales v England thing. Again, your premise for this is a hatred of the Welsh assembly rather than stock proof that England's handling of the situation is significantly (if any) better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CCFCC3PO

I had sympathy with you, but others then pointed you in other directions and, rather than admitting you were wrong, you doubled down and insisted you were right based on the one, solitary, article you read.

---

I never insisted I was right about anything. I never made any statement of rightness in my original post. in fact I inferred the opposite. People who had read more on the subject just assumed I had and that I was deliberately ignoring it. But I hadn't.
All my subsequent posts have not been about being right or wrong, they are about posters answering something they are assuming instead of actually reading what has been written. It happens all the time on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

What I said may have been sympathetic, but again, I was only reacting to that article, without any knowledge of any other reports on the subject. Why does no one actually grasp that? Becuuas it doesn't suit their argument???

As for the briefing, each minister that gets stood up there talks about his own brief, and its often a deflection, but the information from the clinicians is normally insightful and the questions can probe the numbers and the information that drives decisions. From your comment I get the impression you are implying that it isn't relevant to Wales. In which case should we only listen to the Wales briefing If the people on here did do that we wouldn't be having this conversation because its not relevant to Wales. You can't have it both ways can you?

---

No my point has nothing to do with Wales. You bemoaned that the Cummings issue deflected from the purpose of the Coronavirus daily briefing though obviously the actions of one individual were pertinent to how others managed and are managing social mobility restrictions.

My point was that the Transport Secretary racked up to give some spiel from the Conservative Manifesto that had very little to do with people managing their lives around the virus. It seemed targeted towards the North of England where obviously there was a surge of new Tory seats. If you have prime time tv then get your message out about protecting the public not your wider political agenda!

Allegedly, Cummings' visit to Durham coincided with his mother's birthday and a neighbour happened to spot him in the garden with his kid running around and music blasting out behind him.

Curiouser and curiouser.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Allegedly, Cummings' visit to Durham coincided with his mother's birthday and a neighbour happened to spot him in the garden with his kid running around and music blasting out behind him.

Curiouser and curiouser.....

---

He must have recovered quickly as his wife said he collapsed 24 hours after arriving home to care for her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

Allegedly, Cummings' visit to Durham coincided with his mother's birthday and a neighbour happened to spot him in the garden with his kid running around and music blasting out behind him.

Curiouser and curiouser.....

---

Look. If you can't stop off in Watford Gap Services, buy an ABBA Gold CD then blast it out around the family estate what's the point of being Prime Minister?..........sorry I meant Senior Political Advisor to the Prime Minister?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

No my point has nothing to do with Wales. You bemoaned that the Cummings issue deflected from the purpose of the Coronavirus daily briefing though obviously the actions of one individual were pertinent to how others managed and are managing social mobility restrictions.

My point was that the Transport Secretary racked up to give some spiel from the Conservative Manifesto that had very little to do with people managing their lives around the virus. It seemed targeted towards the North of England where obviously there was a surge of new Tory seats. If you have prime time tv then get your message out about protecting the public not your wider political agenda!

---

Fair comment lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

When I read that he rushed home I assumed she meant Durham, the have a home there but i still cannot find a reference to London. It may be word blindness. It doesn't really matter, as I have said on several posts, what he did was not very clever even 'f they do manage to say it was in the rules. It was the way the likes of hitls questioned what I ahd said assuming I ahd read something I hadn't. lol :hehe:

---

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?)

Maybe his journey was simply to help honour the Govts post election commitment to levelling up. Compared to London the virus had had relatively little impact in the North East until his trip north. He was no doubt instrumental in this key post-election policy commitment and just look at what's happened with the virus in the North East since!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

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?

Dear, oh dear, oh dear https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ockdown-claims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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?

---

Perhaps it was this bit.

After the uncertainty of the bug itself, we emerged from quarantine into the almost comical uncertainty of London lockdown. Everything and its opposite seems true. People are frightened and they’re calm; it’s spring and it’s not. Standing in line’s a pain in the ass and the most fun you’ll have all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

I never said I was right, I only ever said in that article there was no mention of where she was or that they had both traveled.
I also said that whatever the truth it was not the best thing he could have done. It wasn't.
At no time have I said he didn't travel or that she didn't but people misread what I wrote and assumed that was what I was saying. Personally I don't give a toss one way or the other, the biggest problem was today that this completely dominated questions on the government briefing to the detrement of other things more relevant to you and I that may have been asked.
As someone who likes to write for the public domain I would think that you could be able to read what is actually written without building in a meaning that isn't there. Perhaps it's you that is biased, in the reading, rather than me in writing?

---

you keep on saying that you don't give a toss, but the amount of time you've spent arguing in this thread plainly shows that you do.

Why do so many people on here have such a problem with admitting when they've got something wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Perhaps it was this bit.

After the uncertainty of the bug itself, we emerged from quarantine into the almost comical uncertainty of London lockdown. Everything and its opposite seems true. People are frightened and they’re calm; it’s spring and it’s not. Standing in line’s a pain in the ass and the most fun you’ll have all day.

---

Fair enough, I never saw that bit.

TOBW, what did I get wrong? Tell me? What assertion did I make that was wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

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?

---

"After the uncertainty of the bug itself, we emerged from quarantine into the almost comical uncertainty of London lockdown. Everything and its opposite seems true. People are frightened and they’re calm; it’s spring and it’s not. Standing in line’s a pain in the ass and the most fun you’ll have all day."

It's the 10th paragraph of the article.

You didn't just mention Durham, xsnaggle... I said that they live in London in my post and you responded that they "also have a house in Durham." That's a pretty firm statement to make and it turned out to be false, so why say it and then pretend that you didn't?

In regards to: "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? "

You really think that you never made a presumption or mention travelling?

How about this?:

"Correct me if I'm wrong but the way the article read to me as that Mrs Cummings and son were already in Durham and he drove there to be with them. She says, 'would have to come home' like my Mrs used to say 'when are you coming home' when I worked away.
He drove to Durham to care for her I understood, which most men would tend to do for their wife.
Whether that was right or wrong is another matter."

There's at least two presumptions and a mention of who was travelling where in that post alone. You presumed that his wife was already in Durham. You presumed that Cummings drove there to care for her.

The reason that article was brought up in the first place was because it was already out in the public knowledge (if you had bothered to read any of the other articles/news stories) that they had actually driven up there together and the reason that people were "berating you" is because you were pointlessly trying to work out what Mrs Cummings meant in her article when the news had already confirmed that your presumptions were wrong.

I'm sorry if you didn't recognise why the discussions with you in this thread have gone this way... But trying to make out that you didn't say the things that you've said isn't going to help the discussion, is it?

Apparently he made the same trip on two occasions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

TOBW, what did I get wrong? Tell me? What assertion did I make that was wrong?

---

Well, there's the post above for a start. You suggested his wife and son were already in Durham, it's pretty obvious now they weren't - doesn't that mean you were wrong?