Dominic Cummings alleged breach of lockdown rules discussion

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The point is surely that the severity of the crime is related to who the offender is.

Perhaps a website member with legal knowledge would like to make a legalistic clarification response to what has been said above.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Did the Police not say he would have just got a "ticking off" - like any other member of the public would have for the Barnard Castle excursion.

Yes, they did, although what they say is different to the experience of a woman 20 miles away at Newcastle station. (Yes, I know that was the BTP not Durham Constabulary).

Coronavirus: Woman 'wrongly charged under new law'

Police want her conviction for refusing to say why she was on a train to be "set aside".

www.bbc.com

A woman was fined £660 after being wrongly charged under coronavirus laws, British Transport Police has admitted.

Marie Dinou, 41, from York, was arrested at Newcastle Central Station on Saturday after she refused to tell police why she needed to travel.

She was fined on Monday by magistrates for breaching the Coronavirus Act.

.

 

[111-111-1]

He may not have broken the law (and that is all, as Durham Plod say, they are responsible for) but I still believe he went against the advice.

Unfortunate that that is the stance of many. Look on this fora the number of posts that state the guideline is not the law so it is not illegal to not keep to guideline.

 

[SteveM70]

Perhaps a website member with legal knowledge would like to make a legalistic clarification response to what has been said above.

Apologies. Poor wording on my part - for “severity” read “consequences”.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunate that that is the stance of many. Look on this fora the number of posts that state the guideline is not the law so it is not illegal to not keep to guideline.

It's not illegal not to keep to the guideline alone, and indeed the law is all the Police should be enforcing, as that's what they are for. However, if you are instrumental in writing the guidelines and you then ignore them (or, as in Bojo's case, you give credence to someone who did), what you are is a massive hypocrite. And I prefer not to be governed by massive hypocrites.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's not illegal not to keep to the guideline alone, and indeed the law is all the Police should be enforcing, as that's what they are for. However, if you are instrumental in writing the guidelines and you then ignore them (or, as in Bojo's case, you give credence to someone who did), what you are is a massive hypocrite. And I prefer not to be governed by massive hypocrites.

An interesting point you make concerning "governed by massive hypocrites". Have you any suggestions as to something akin to a form of pre-candidature psychological profiling of candidates by trained medical professionals upon those who wish to stand for election as a Member of Parliament that will weed out those unsuitable for such a role in public life?

 

[Butts]

He may not have broken the law (and that is all, as Durham Plod say, they are responsible for) but I still believe he went against the advice.

Advice is just that, not the Law.

 

[VauxhallandI]

If it was all just advice what the hell are we all doing sitting in our homes?

 

[brad465]

If it was all just advice the hell are we all doing sitting in our homes?

Yes while it's not a major crime, the fact Durham Police said had they encountered Cummings at Barnard Castle they would have told him to return home and if he accepted that would not have been fined. While this is another subject entirely, it sums up how little deterrent there was/is for flouting the rules/advice, certainly compared to other countries.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Yes while it's not a major crime, the fact Durham Police said had they encountered Cummings at Barnard Castle they would have told him to return home and if he accepted that would not have been fined. While this is another subject entirely, it sums up how little deterrent there was/is for flouting the rules/advice, certainly compared to other countries.

If I had been fined I would be making some calls as to whether I could take action to reverse the ruling.

I’d expect the full support of the DC fan club on here

 

[yorkie]

If it was all just advice what the hell are we all doing sitting in our homes?

There is no requirement to sit in your home!

A breach of the legislation is enforceable but the police said all along they would try to avoid issuing fines where possible, only doing so as a last resort.

There was never any prospect of retrospective fines being issued.

If I had been fined I would be making some calls as to whether I could take action to reverse the ruling.

On what basis? It's no different to someone being caught speeding and someone else getting away with it.

No-one can be retrospectively fined for a lockdown breach.

By all means say he should resign or have his role terminated (neither of which are particularly likely, sadly) and I would totally agree with you!

See: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lockdown-rules-discussion.204766/post-4598831 for a good explanation of this.

Unfortunate that that is the stance of many. Look on this fora the number of posts that state the guideline is not the law so it is not illegal to not keep to guideline.

I think he did break the law with the Durham to Bernard Castle trip, but not the London to Durham trip (given the child safeguarding reason) and so do the police.

Your post is muddled and I think you are confused. It's true that guidelines in themselves are not "the law" but there will obviously be some overlap.

There are two separate questions here:

• was driving to Bernard Castle contrary to the law? (the answer is probably yes)
• and, if not, was driving to Bernard Castle contrary to the guidelines? (the answer is almost definitely yes)

He cannot be retrospectively fined for breaking the law, but he should be required to relinquish his role, and almost anyone can see that.

 

[45107]

An interesting point you make concerning "governed by massive hypocrites". Have you any suggestions as to something akin to a form of pre-candidature psychological profiling of candidates by trained medical professionals upon those who wish to stand for election as a Member of Parliament that will weed out those unsuitable for such a role in public life?

I think we all know that that will not happen.
Candidates for election are selected by local political parties or imposed at national level due to connections and the ability of the candidate to ‘sell sand to the Arabs“.
There are a few exceptions to this but I am not aware of any within the current governing cabal.

 

[infobleep]

I wrote to my local MP, which is something I rarely do. In amongst various things I wanted to raise awareness for, I mentioned my views on Mr Cummings.

What I'm about to write wasn't in my e-mail to my MP though

I think if what Mr Cummings did, didn't warrant a fine, then no one should be fined for a first offence across the whole country, aka England. That's if they comply and head back to where they came from of course. Obviously someone who refuses the instruction would be fined first time.

I wonder if any motorists have been fined straight away. Would seem unfair if they have, especially if the intention wasn't to fine but offer advice. Apologies if someone has already highlighted such a case. I don't have time to read all the 17 pages.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a journalist out there trying to find out if this has happened to someone.

 

[yorkie]

I wrote to my local MP, which is something I rarely do. In amongst various things I wanted to raise awareness for, I mentioned my views on Mr Cummings.

What I'm about to write wasn't in my e-mail to my MP though

I think if what Mr Cummings did, didn't warrant a fine, then no one should be fined for a first offence across the whole country, aka England. That's if they comply and head back to where they came from of course. Obviously someone who refuses the instruction would be fined first time.

I wonder if any motorists have been fined straight away. Would seem unfair if they have, especially if the intention wasn't to fine but offer advice. Apologies if someone has already highlighted such a case. I don't have time to read all the 17 pages.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a journalist out there trying to find out if this has happened to someone.

see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rules-discussion.204766/page-16#post-4598831

 

[londiscape]

While the common consensus is that his story about driving to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight was a whopping great tissue of lies, I am surprised that so many people are prepared to believe his rubbish about driving to Durham for "childcare reasons" - surely it must be obvious to anyone with a brain that the actual reason was "soddit, we're not staying in a poky flat in London, let's go to my family's estate in Durham where we've got loads of land and it's much prettier". And subsequently "oh s*it I got caught, better make up something to do with childcare, no worries, everyone will go "oh won't you think of the children *swoon*" and I'll get away with it".

Which of course is a complete insult to those who have had to stay in a poky flat in London because they aren't fortunate enough to have a family estate with loads of land where it's much prettier, and those who've had to manage childcare within said poky flat.

The best outcome of all of this is that it will drive public opinion against this feculent lockdown, which DC was instrumental in creating, and stop this evisceration of jobs, education, business, society and, most importantly, those who are dying invisibly not of COVID, but as a direct result of the ill-conceived measures taken to suppress it.

 

[infobleep]

see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rules-discussion.204766/page-16#post-4598831

Thanks for that link.

It was suggested on LBC earlier that might may have been used because the police didn't speak directly to Mr Cummings or his wife but relied upon other evidence. If the outcome was no further action, why waste policing resources contacting him?

I am happy to accept it's the courts who decide on guilt. However the police can issue penalty fines on the spot without going to court first.

Whether Mr Cummings likes it or not, I see him as an influencer and thus he needs to be careful with his actions, as his actions may influence others to commit breeches of the law, some of which may be more dangerous than what he did

I've tried to be fair with this and not just say go because I'm not keen on him. However I think he should go due to what he did and the very public position he holds.

 

[infobleep]

While the common consensus is that his story about driving to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight was a whopping great tissue of lies, I am surprised that so many people are prepared to believe his rubbish about driving to Durham for "childcare reasons" - surely it must be obvious to anyone with a brain that the actual reason was "soddit, we're not staying in a poky flat in London, let's go to my family's estate in Durham where we've got loads of land and it's much prettier". And subsequently "oh s*it I got caught, better make up something to do with childcare, no worries, everyone will go "oh won't you think of the children *swoon*" and I'll get away with it".

Which of course is a complete insult to those who have had to stay in a poky flat in London because they aren't fortunate enough to have a family estate with loads of land where it's much prettier, and those who've had to manage childcare within said poky flat.

The best outcome of all of this is that it will drive public opinion against this feculent lockdown, which DC was instrumental in creating, and stop this evisceration of jobs, education, business, society and, most importantly, those who are dying invisibly not of COVID, but as a direct result of the ill-conceived measures taken to suppress it.

It is entirely possible that the people in the pokey flat may have had relatives they could have gone to but didn't, as they thought it was against the law or guidance, when it wasn't.

Still at least Mr Cummings has highlighted the issue for thousands of families now. In future they will know what to do in the same situation, assuming they have relatives or friends they czn visit.

My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that people can travel for childcare reason and thus could stay with a family in their home. In fact anyone they like, as long as it related to childcare. It also doesn't matter if they suspect COVID-19 or even have the symptoms, they can travel.

Whether they could is another matter.

 

[Laryk]

My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that people can travel for childcare reason and thus could stay with a family in their home. In fact anyone they like, as long as it related to childcare. It also doesn't matter if they suspect COVID-19 or even have the symptoms, they can travel.

This is the really interesting outcome of the defence of Mr Cummings' actions.

Up until now, I think anyone would have been hard-pressed to accept that "exceptional, life threatening circumstances that warranted a drive with your (potentially COVID suffering) family 260 miles away" included "my wife was ill".

Really, how many parents have become unwell over the past few months? It's a pandemic, of course parents will become sick. And if the spirit of the rules was "as soon as a parent becomes sick (COVID or no COVID) they are entitled to travel anywhere in the country that is convenient for them using the excuse of childcare issues" then what on earth is the point of the lockdown in the first place?
In 2014 there were approx 8 million households with dependent children. So that's (at least) 8 million opportunities to break lockdown while suffering COVID symptoms.

The guidance for childcare, if both parents were unable to look after a dependant child was:

although we are encouraging everybody to stay in their own households - that’s the unit, with the same risk exposure - clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance, and if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs.

Not "if you think there is a chance that you will both become unable to look after a child in the future, don't talk to close family, neighbours, friends, local authority, your government(!), but drive 260 miles away to your elderly parents house.

So clearly his actions wore not in the spirit of the guidelines, but if he "acted with integrity" then I suppose all parents should be acting with integrity and interpreting the rules however you like, because there's a handy "I don't want to follow the rules" caveat:

Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures [about self-isolating] will be possible…

 

[VauxhallandI]

There is no requirement to sit in your home!

A breach of the legislation is enforceable but the police said all along they would try to avoid issuing fines where possible, only doing so as a last resort.

There was never any prospect of retrospective fines being issued.


On what basis? It's no different to someone being caught speeding and someone else getting away with it.

No-one can be retrospectively fined for a lockdown breach.

By all means say he should resign or have his role terminated (neither of which are particularly likely, sadly) and I would totally agree with you!

See: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lockdown-rules-discussion.204766/post-4598831 for a good explanation of this.


I think he did break the law with the Durham to Bernard Castle trip, but not the London to Durham trip (given the child safeguarding reason) and so do the police.

Your post is muddled and I think you are confused. It's true that guidelines in themselves are not "the law" but there will obviously be some overlap.

There are two separate questions here:

• was driving to Bernard Castle contrary to the law? (the answer is probably yes)
• and, if not, was driving to Bernard Castle contrary to the guidelines? (the answer is almost definitely yes)

He cannot be retrospectively fined for breaking the law, but he should be required to relinquish his role, and almost anyone can see that.

At the time of the incident we were very much under the impression that we had to stay in our homes, we were quarantining parcels for Pete’s sake whilst he was driving around the country with a never ending gob stopper fuelling his car.

There will be people out there with fines for what could be described as similar incidents. I don’t believe this case is anything like a speeding fine. If it is all down to instinct and reason/judgement of the individual then I would want it quite understandably revisited in the light of the new insightful thinking of Cummings

 

[111-111-1]

It's not illegal not to keep to the guideline alone, and indeed the law is all the Police should be enforcing, as that's what they are for. However, if you are instrumental in writing the guidelines and you then ignore them (or, as in Bojo's case, you give credence to someone who did), what you are is a massive hypocrite. And I prefer not to be governed by massive hypocrites.

That’s the problem guidelines and the law do not say the same thing.

In Cummings case IF the trip was legal for child care as there was none available in London then maybe ok. He has not been challenge on why he could not ask friend in London instead of the family offer in Durham.

He should not go to work after his wife showed symptoms, they should have isolated for 14 day. Trips out near Durham are all rubbish. If he need to test drive car a 5 mile trip to get fuel would have sufficed. The eye test excuse is stupid.

Yes he’s a hypocrite and should not have been allowed to resign, he should have been suspended immediately then sacked.

 

[yorkie]

There will be people out there with fines for what could be described as similar incidents...

Yes but the facts are that some people got away without detection and some didn't; some people complied with further instructions when caught and some people didn't.

The fact that some people got away without being caught and/or were caught and complied with instructions and therefore avoided a fine, does not mean the fines that were issued can, or should, be "reversed"; that isn't how fines work!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Yes but the facts are that some people got away without detection and some didn't; some people complied with further instructions when caught and some people didn't.

The fact that some people got away without being caught and/or were caught and complied with instructions and therefore avoided a fine, does not mean the fines that were issued can, or should, be "reversed"; that isn't how fines work!

No the fact that some people received fines for certain actions and others were deemed not to be fined for similar/same reasons can be appealed. That is the prerogative of the individual to do through whatever means to them; the fact that it can't/won't be overturned doesn't stop the appeal taking place.

Second home anyone?

The image below is an excerpt from a Land Registry request that shows that the property Cummings travelled to in Durham is owned by him and is therefore his second home - I cannot guarantee at the moment the legitimacy of the information

 

[yorkie]

No the fact that some people received fines for certain actions and others were deemed not to be fined for similar/same reasons can be appealed.

If someone was caught doing something and someone else wasn't, I don't see how that is grounds for appeal by the person who was caught.

 

[VauxhallandI]

If someone was caught doing something and someone else wasn't, I don't see how that is grounds for appeal by the person who was caught.

But he was approached by the police?

He has also admitted to actions so he doesn't need to be caught in the act. We have a confession on live TV

 

[C J Snarzell]

The big issue now with this sorry affair is that some MPs are leading a revolt against Boris Johnson decision not to hang Cummings out to dry and Kier Starmer is on the war path. I really don't think this is helping anyone at this present time. Our government should be working together during this Covid19 crisis - not falling out like playground children!

 

[VauxhallandI]

The big issue now with this sorry affair is that some MPs are leading a revolt against Boris Johnson decision not to hang Cummings out to dry and Kier Starmer is on the war path. I really don't think this is helping anyone at this present time. Our government should be working together during this Covid19 crisis - not falling out like playground children!

Correct.

This is the thin end of the wedge with Cummings and it needs to be nipped in the bud but Johnson has had his spine removed.

 

[yorkie]

But he was approached by the police?

I don't wish to defend his actions but I can't find a source that says that.

You are effectively saying that he was spoken to by police on the Bernard Castle trip (which is the trip in question which was against the law) and that actions were taken that were contrary to actions taken with other members of the public.

But this doesn't appear to be true at all.

By all means criticise him for what he did, but it's wrong to say that other people should have their finds refunded just because some others didn't get caught. I also refer you to posts earlier in this thread where Durham police state their policy quite clearly.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Apologies his statements have been reviewed so in effect he's had more scrutiny than a chat. His actions have been "approached" and reviewed and whilst some skilful response at the road side could be let off with discretion at the time. However we now find a recorded statement with more holes than Swiss cheese is being ignored.

 

[Esker-pades]

But he was approached by the police?

He has also admitted to actions so he doesn't need to be caught in the act. We have a confession on live TV

I don't wish to defend his actions but I can't find a source that says that.

You are effectively saying that he was spoken to by police on the Bernard Castle trip (which is the trip in question which was against the law) and that actions were taken that were contrary to actions taken with other members of the public.

But this doesn't appear to be true at all.

By all means criticise him for what he did, but it's wrong to say that other people should have their finds refunded just because some others didn't get caught. I also refer you to posts earlier in this thread where Durham police state their policy quite clearly.

As far as we know, Dominic Cummings has not been questioned by the police at any point. However, Cummings Sr (father) was questioned twice following sightings of Dominic.

 

[Butts]

As far as we know, Dominic Cummings has not been questioned by the police at any point. However, Cummings Sr (father) was questioned twice following sightings of Dominic.

Hardly suprising as he has not broken the Law - guidelines are exactly that not mandatory.