Cummings gets his street cordoned off

I appreciate you feel strongly about it but this sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed to go on in a civilised society. Encourage this sort of behaviour and it won’t be long before we have another Jo Cox scenario. I get emotions are running high but in the same way we afford protection to others in society who have committed much worse crimes - he is also entitled to that protection regardless of what we think of his actions.
I would disagree. His own MP, (at least I believe Corbyn is his MP) has been hounded by the press and much worse over the past 4 years. Not once did he ask for a police cordon. To my knowledge no MP has. This unelected SPAD is actually getting greater protection. It's a complete outrage and a further step towards a police state
 
I would disagree. His own MP, (at least I believe Corbyn is his MP) has been hounded by the press and much worse over the past 4 years. Not once did he ask for a police cordon. To my knowledge no MP has. This unelected SPAD is actually getting greater protection. It's a complete outrage and a further step towards a police state
Well done for dodging most of my points in your response. Are we even sure that it his him that has requested this cordon? Maybe his neighbours, maybe the police etc etc.
 
They say he 'may have broken lockdown rules'.
If they say the London to Durham trip was ok - then apologies

They also point out they are commenting on the regulations not the government policy of 'stay home'
 
Last edited:
This is all retrospective, with one version of events.

If there was to be a video of Cummings asking his wife if they fancied a jolly to Durham for two weeks that would be a proven breach. As it is, Cummings had the ability to produce a statement to fit the known facts.
 
I'm not sure why it wasn't a breach of regulations :
Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member, or

(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.
 
I'm not sure why it wasn't a breach of regulations :

Because the government and Cummings opened a previously unknown grey area with childcare in extreme situations to cover for his actions.

As soon as it became a government opinion, they would have to retrospectively prove this grey area did not exist and a clear breach took place.
 
Because the government and Cummings opened a previously unknown grey area with childcare in extreme situations to cover for his actions.

As soon as it became a government opinion, they would have to retrospectively prove this grey area did not exist and a clear breach took place.
But that isn't covered in the regulations. The only possible reference is:
(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

But this is in reference to public services and only if they still exist, not some new form of childcare.
 
Because the government and Cummings opened a previously unknown grey area with childcare in extreme situations to cover for his actions.

As soon as it became a government opinion, they would have to retrospectively prove this grey area did not exist and a clear breach took place.

If that wasnt then surely the trip to Barnard Castle or going into work when his wife had symptoms was
 
But that isn't covered in the regulations. The only possible reference is:


But this is in reference to public services and only if they still exist, not some new form of childcare.

Screenshot_20200524-145654_Chrome.jpg
They are stating this gave Cummings the ability to ignore restrictions. Its boll0cks but allows for a grey enough area for Cummings to get away with justifying it in retrospect.

Without evidence to prove his version catagorically incorrect, it would be very very hard to prosecute.

If he was caught at the time driving up to Durham, it may have had a different outcome.
 
If that wasnt then surely the trip to Barnard Castle or going into work when his wife had symptoms was

Barnard Castle trip was in breach. I agree on the second point, though not sure that would fall into the jurisdiction of Durham Police.
 
View attachment 3474
They are stating this gave Cummings the ability to ignore restrictions. Its boll0cks but allows for a grey enough area for Cummings to get away with justifying it in retrospect.

Without evidence to prove his version catagorically incorrect, it would be very very hard to prosecute.

If he was caught at the time driving up to Durham, it may have had a different outcome.
But the law is the law and that wasn't the law, it was a government guideline. They specifically said they wouldn't comment on government guidelines, only the regulations.
 
or more like he hasn’t had it cornered it off and the police have due to the unnecessary amount of people in one place not social distancing.
I wonder why they might not be social distancing on his street?
What did he do recently that might have caused people to doubt him I wonder?

👀
 
Back
Top