I am only too aware of the sacrifices people have made over the last few weeks. My mother died just before lockdown and one of my sisters had to think long and hard about whether she would be safe coming to say her goodbyes, being in her seventies with an underlying health conditions. I’ve lost two uncles during lockdown, neither of whom I could visit before but fortunately one of whom I could join the limited numbers of close family to pay my respects. I am dearly looking forward to the time when we can gather together as a family to celebrate the lives of these three extraordinary people who touched so many across the world over the best part of the last century. Of course we hear stories on a regular basis way more traumatic than my personal grief.
But on the whole people across the UK have stuck to the core message of staying home to protect the NHS and save lives. Although this is the core message, clearly it isn’t the complete message which included people being able to travel to work if their business wasn’t required to work and they could not work from home. It doesn’t cover the guidelines which included such variations as children who lived across two homes in shared custody and it certainly doesn’t cover the endless possibilities that no set of reasonable guidelines could cover at all, let alone in absolute detail. That is one of the reasons that as we look to move to the next stage, the prescriptive sounding ‘Stay at Home, Save Lives,’ has been replaced with a common-sense catch-all of ‘Stay Alert, Save Lives’, giving implicit permission for people to use their own judgement which has largely been the case to date anyway. The initial reason for limiting social contact, of protecting the most vulnerable, has been lost as younger, fit and healthy people fear that they may themselves die from Covid-19, something that remains statistically hugely unlikely.
Dominic Cummings, one of the Prime Minister’s closest advisers, has dominated the news and social media after month-old reports of him travelling up to County Durham were finally published by newspapers. Rather than jump in based on conjecture, I prefer to establish a reasonable take on the facts available and so watched his own account of what happened when he and his wife suspected that they were both falling ill with coronavirus. I’ve met him on just one occasion so don’t have any detailed knowledge of the man but I’ve never bought into the mythological Svengali/Macchiaveli status that the press and his opposition have built up around him. I watched the statement live, I watched the questions that followed from the press live. He laid out his reasons for his actions in some detail and showed an approach that was, like any parent of a child under the age of five, very much ‘in the moment’ and driven by the cards he had in his hands in a rapidly changing and multi layered situation. I had no doubt, watching the statement and subsequent questioning live, that all the choices taken were for the good of his child whilst remaining constantly mindful of the need to keep within government guidance.
Firstly, it was a shame that this information wasn’t released earlier. I regret the fact that news has been diminished to minute-by-minute reaction which does not allow for meaningful consideration before long-lasting judgements have been cemented, but that’s the world we are living in now. Secondly whilst we were going through the long days of Brexit, political differences meant that anyone within a mile of Westminster could trip over an argument and write a column about it. Since then, political journalists have had to work harder to get an ‘interesting story’, something that doesn’t necessarily correlate with importance for viewers who are getting on with their lives. This has been illustrated by the fact that it took some time for all media outlets to recognise that the Covid 19 emergency is not a political crisis as Brexit was – it was not a political choice of the government to be affected by Covid therefore it seems to me that when the Secretary of State for Health for example is being questioned surely the most qualified would be departmental specific correspondents ie the health correspondents rather than the political editor? The post-press conference commentary came after a number of journalists spent nearly an hour questioning him directly and then with hindsight compiled a new set of questions, whereas Dominic Cummings made his decisions in real-time; balancing his family’s need, his interpretation of the guidelines and his important work for the country.
Notwithstanding this there were a number of points in the reports and Dominic Cummings’ own account that deserved questions from the Prime Minister and the politically-focused media. Based on what I heard throughout the whole press conference, I believe that he answered the central point that he acted within the guidance allowing for his family’s exceptional circumstances. Some people may disagree with some of his judgement calls, but I believe that he made them in good faith based on his understanding of the guidance, in the best interest of his family and his position within the heart of government at a particularly crucial time without setting himself ahead of others. With that in mind, I’d rather him and others in government. be able to concentrate on the job at hand as we enter a particularly difficult phase of the crisis. I’ve been heavily involved in the return to work as we lift restrictions. The government’s first priority has always been to save lives, but protecting livelihoods and businesses is crucial if we are able to go through the gears economically and bounce back when the scientific advice allows.
I can understand the frustration from some. Yes, there are political scores being settled, with the left trying to take a scalp and some of the Brexit leavers still sore that Dominic Cummings has been critical of them, but most people with no political axe to grind, have seen the headlines and some of the coverage and many are understandably angry. Based on Dominic Cummings’ account of himself, I believe that we are now at the time to move on to the things that will affect people way after he is a footnote in political memoirs. His approach to government gives us a chance to build an approach that is often pushed by those sick of the normal state of affairs.
Raking over every minor detail won’t save a life, protect a job, or improve a single child’s education. Drilling into the detail of the bladder capacity of his child is just not a world I want to be part of. We don’t live in a police state which is why the Prime Minister thought long and hard about how and when we started to restrict freedoms. We are coming to the point when we can gradually look into the light and slowly start to enjoy those freedoms and release the pause button on our lives. But to do that effectively we need to continue to work together. There is no different set of rules for those in power. There is however a different spotlight, a huge cost on family life and a relentless daily pressure. I would love to be able to see my children after 63 days. I want others to be with their loved ones but just concentrating on one polarising individual won’t bring that moment any closer.
As your constituent I appreciate that you’ve clearly taken the time to assess the situation and wait for as much information as possible, and I respect that you’ve put a lot of thought into your response instead of the copying and pasting PR approved messages that so many of your colleagues have taken part in.
However, I have to disagree with your conclusion. I will try to keep my reasoning to some key points:
1. Cummings’ statement by itself creates huge suspicion. Every stop he made just happened to be those that were spotted by the public, the trip to “test his eyesight” is frankly ridiculous, and the idea that he happened to have a full tank of petrol before leaving London and drive with such fuel efficiency he didn’t need to fill up until his return journey is just too unbelievable for even the most generous audience. Viewed in the context of his previous statements he is clearly not being completely truthful.
2. He and his wife clearly misled the public with their articles before the trip became public, he only came forward with this statement when he was caught and attention wasn’t going away which suggests he knows what he was doing wasn’t within the rules.
3. When a parent cannot be by their child’s side as they die, the definition of what is reasonable must be recalculated. His actions might have been reasonable in different times, but with so many people having to sacrifice so much in this situation they simply weren’t. He has been made aware of this multiple times (if he wasn’t somehow aware of it previously) so his continued lack of contrition is now unforgivable to me and I believe he must face consequences.
How can this possibly be acceptable when members of the public were being fined for travelling far shorter distances on childcare grounds?
I have just heard that Durham Police say he did break the rules in travelling to/from Barnard Castle. He broke the rules and undermined the Govt strategy increasing the risks for us all He should resign or be sacked.
Then you heard wrong. Durham Police say he “might” have broken the rules.
Durham Police also said that if they had stopped him on the way to Barnard Castle they would have sent him back. So, “might” raises the possibility that he broke the rules and this later part of their statement actually confirms the fact that he did. Why would he otherwise be sent back if stopped?
His reply doesn’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Tonight’s disgraceful putinesque press conference was the last straw. They’ve lost my vote.
As I have pointed out in an email to you. The government advice was stay at home and any further problems, then people were to contact local authority covid hub especially in relation to children.
Professor Neil Ferguson broke the rules and was gracious enough to resign so please do not polilticise this by accusing the media of whipping up a storm and wanting Brexit scalps
The guidance from government is more extensive than the Covid emergency legislation so there will be loopholes that can be exploited. It cannot be interpreted as meaning that people with coronavirus symptoms may leave their home and drive to another part of the country. This would be entirely contrary to the main message of stay at home.
Guidance can be ignored but the government expects it to be followed. Those in government should be held to set an example. Otherwise, cooperation is likely to collapse. The public took that message in good faith and Mr Cummings did not.
Boris Johnson has made a decision to support Mr Cummings. Any further advice from the Conservative government will be disingenuous.
Mr Cummings needs to resign and your thoughts on the matter justifying his behaviour makes you complicit in this sorry mess. The message of taking back control is not just a handy sound bite for Brexit…the constituents have voiced their concerns, the majority of the public have too. So step up to the plate and put pressure on the cabinet through your party and do the right thing.
Tories bang on about one nation conservatism…it does not look like that to me. More like public school boys versus the rest of the population
Agree with everything you say here. I think your point captures the mood of the wider general public, or at very least – anyone who has been following this story.
Whilst Paul Scully’s blog piece above does acknowledge that the situation did deserve questioning, his “dealt with, now move on…” stance is really frustrating.
Given that Cummings’ actions and subsequent bungled response has resulted in widespread public confusion over the social distancing messaging coming from Government, the matter needs to be treated seriously. Giving Cummings a free pass on his questionable behaviour and allowing glaring inconsistencies in his explanation to remain unanswered is a dereliction of duty by No. 10 and prevents the incident from achieving closure.
Indeed, it speaks volumes about the integrity of Mr Cummings when he himself refused to resign from his role, given that he knows how much he has personally harmed public trust in his employers.
Strange that Dominic Cummings had to drive so far to “test his eyesight” don’t you think?! (and with his family)
Mr Scully – you are missing the point! This is not about politics, nor is it about “legitimacy”, because I am sure that, if you focus solely on the fine print (as both Cummings and the PM have been trying to emphasise), you can find that he, technically, did nothing wrong.
No, it is about judgment (or lack of it!), about responsibility, about the moral justification for what he did. Cummings has shown total arrogance in failing to accept the damage he did to the government and its reputation, as well as to the complex, fraught situation regarding the lockdown.
Any past politician would have resigned in these circumstances. If Cummings won’t, then Johnson should clearly dismiss him and I am astonished that you (probably for political reasons) do not agree.
Tony Tucker
I totally agree with James and the majority of replies this is not about politics this is something more fundamental it’s about right and wrong. Matt Hancock said at the beginning of the lockdown that it wasn’t a request to stay at home it was an instruction and we followed that. It is now being said that he used instinct etc. To do what he did this has now completely muddied the whole message and the Government is losing all goodwill and any hope of getting people to comply with the track and trace is disappearing fast because of the lack of trust.
I don’t think this will disappear because there are too many ordinary citizens incensed by this whole saga.
I am very disappointed with your view.
Dominic Cummings has now been found, by Durham Police, to have broken lockdown rules. What is your response to this latest information. Have a backbone and do the right thing by your constituents.
Thank you for sending this, and my condolences on the bereavements you have suffered. As you might expect, I agree with most of the comments already made. Mr Cummings’s position was not exceptional, and he stated that he had not explored other options regarding childcare before setting off for Durham. Mrs Cummings apparently has a brother and a sister living in London, the brother having a son about the age of the Cummingses’ son.
If Mr Cummings is not even reprimanded he will go on to do worse things and so will many others who think “if he can, I can.” Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. All good wishes.
“Raking over every minor detail won’t save a life, protect a job, or improve a single child’s education.”
This is exactly what I expect the government to do with every policy they have ever made or proposed.
The above statement implies that you and the Conservative party have never thought it was important for them to do that, so I can only can assume this is the case. I wrongly thought that was your fundamental job for us the people.
I agree with Mr Barnett and the other responding to this article. Dominic Cumming’s behaviour is inexcusable. As a man who claims to be acting in the best interests of his family, why did he put his 4 year old child in a car (a confined space) in very close proximity to at least one adult with suspected Corona virus symptoms during the 4 or 5 hours it took to drive to Durham. If my son had behaved so irresponsibly with one of his children, I would have reported him to the police myself.
Dear Mr Scully
Thank you for your response. I am saddened to hear of the sad and difficult times you have experienced recently.
However, I do not agree with your interpretation. Which caring father straps a child into a car and drives 60 miles whilst their vision is impaired and/or testing if they could see?
So many MPs, like you, have denied knowing Mr Cummings which is worrying as he seems to have a great deal of power. I am sure your job will be secure in the short term due to you showing such blind loyalty but come the next election I’m not so sure you will still be Sutton’s MP.
Dear Mr Scully,
I received the link to your reply today in regard to your view on Mr Dominic Cummings behaviour and Mr Johnson’s reaction to said conduct.
This link led me to your reply and a thread of correspondence from my fellow constituents almost wholeheartedly asking you again and again to tell us what your opinion of what Mr Cummings did and your advice to the Prime Minister about the incident.
I feel exactly as most of the replies I was led to – you as our directly elected representative in Government simply want us to ‘move on’ and take an attitude that what is done is done. Surely it is precisely because you are not applying your judgement as our MP to use your influence to make our voices heard that we are not happy to move on as we are being asked again and again to use our judgement in the coming days.
I ended my original letter asking you what you could tell me about how we move forward. You however want me to accept that the media are to blame with long term political grievances and left and right wanting to see Mr Cummings fail. This in particular I find offensive and insulting to my intelligence. Mr Cummings is a paid employee, not an elected representative of the country. You should be directing him in the ethical movement of the leadership of this country in this terrible emergency. Mistakes are made and when people make them they need to reflect on them and improve their decision making. We as Sutton constituents have done the right thing. You are part of the Government and you now need to do the right thing as we move forward to the next phase.
The Government allowed Dominic Cummings to use the Rose Garden of number 10 Downing Street to turn up late and have such credence in a place normally reserved for visiting Dignitaries or major events such as the start of the Coalition Government of David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Momentous and meaningful events.
That made this event an issue and now you are reaping the rewards. This has nothing to do with party politics other than you making it so. Please represent my views to your party and the Government.
Dear Mr Scully
I have read your article but far from answering my concerns, it raises further worries. I wonder how somebody who is an elected an MP and obviously an educated person could possibly believe the stories told by Dominic Cummings. Driving to another residence many miles away with somebody you suspect of having covid 19 against government lockdown rules, driving 30 miles and back on your wife’s birthday to a beauty spot to test your eyesight, which the police believe was in contravention of the lockdown, not being sure of whether you stopped at a petrol station on the way back to London are all beyond belief. So is the fact that Mrs Cummings never thought it was prudent to drive herself, given the fact her husbands sight was impaired.
Wanting to “move on” is just an excuse to sweep everything under the carpet and is a slap in the face for the vast majority of people in this country who have taken the nations health seriously at great cost to themselves and their loved ones.
I am glad to see that there are many members of the Conservative party who can see through these stories and have called for his resignation and these people have my utmost respect. The remainder, who I have no doubt have simply been instructed to follow the party line with no regard for public opinion or health concerns have proved themselves unworthy of support from the electorate and I am sure that this will manifest itself when it comes to deciding how to vote in the next election, albeit in a few years. You should learn the lesson of the Lib Dem’s whose support was decimated due to their actions several years earlier, the electorate have long memories.
I’m disgusted that Dominic Cummings has not been sacked.
The long term damage this has done to the Conservatives reputation is deplorable.
His actions show utter contempt for the safety of the citizens of our country.
Dominic Cummings is employed as an adviser to the government. How can we be expected to follow his advice when he can’t uphold the guidelines to help stop the spread of Covid19. He has shown a very poor level judgment.
Mr Scully,
I have read your article and I am very disappointed that my MP has taken the view to defend the indefensible.
So are you telling your constituents to apply their own instincts on emergency government rules?
Are you “giving implicit permission for people to use their own judgement” on important Covid-19 guidelines?
And that the best way of testing our eyesight is to go for a 60-mile drive with our wife and children in the car?
You mention “his interpretation of the guidelines” – but isn’t his role in compiling those guidelines and in designing simple slogans so that we all understand them clearly without any need for ambiguity?
You also mention his “family’s exceptional circumstances” – I don’t think that having one child is exceptional, there are tens of millions of parents up and down the country!
You also say that “raking over every minor detail won’t save a life” – but more confusing guidelines from the Leader of our country’s governing Mixed Message Party will. The rules given out in future will be less clear than previous ones, because it has now been proven that we can bend them, look for loopholes and read the small print depending upon our own interpretation.
And that’s why he must resign.
Dear Paul,
Firstly can I offer my condolences for your loss. I too have lost loved ones during this time and it’s been painfully difficult especially for those of us who are left behind being denied the right to collectively share our loss and support those closest to them.
As a constituent of yours, I wrote to you this morning over the handling of this affair, both from Mr Cummings and senior members of the government, on which I hope to receive a reply. In that letter, I have detailed that infact Mr Cummings had, I believe, broken the law with regard to his “drive to test his eyesight” and the appropriate danger that could put others in, especially when he had his wife and child in the car with him. This is not breaking guidelines, covid instructions or “not being in the spirit” of them. This is well established driving law.
Aside from agreeing with Mr Barnett above, a significant part of the reason why the public will not move on from this is how badly the government has handled this. There has been no investigation into whether or not Mr Cummings behaved appropriately beyond the Prime Minister on Sunday saying that he listened to him and believed him. As I wrote in my letter to you, in any other situation there would have at least been that, a possible suspension whilst investigations are ongoing. I believe Durham Police are still investigating the matter, and therefore a press conference at No10 yesterday could be viewed as prejudicial.
This is beyond “scoring political points” – this is now a situation where an unelected bureaucrat has been seen to interpret the rules in a very different way that the majority of this country and the government has given it the green light. Only today in your constituency I heard a lady on the phone saying “I can go and see mum and dad now, we can do what we like”. And that is the crux of the matter. His behaviour, the whitewash around it, the fact that the stories are changing by the hour (including conflicting accounts from Mr Cummings and his wife) are undermining the governments attempts at controlling the virus and saving lives.
The only way we can move on from this would be the removal of Mr Cummings from his post. This one affair has, according to recent polls, made the government lose 20 points in it’s approval rating in 4 days, which as I’m sure you are well aware is a disaster for any party and I believe has never happened before over such a short space of time. Approval ratings are not measured in “political points” – these are grass roots Conservatives who are disgusted by what has happened. These are your own supporters.
I’m sure I’m not the only individual who has written to you from Sutton and Cheam and in your position as being our MP, and therefore accountable to your electorate, you need to take these points on board. If the government has any hope in individuals following the guidelines and making sure we can get through this pandemic with minimal loss of life then it needs to be a government that is transparent and trustworthy. Now that there have already been 2 resignations and over 30 of your own MPs that have put on record that they feel it is time Mr Cummings needs to go, I repeat this isn’t an issue that we can move on from.
I look forward to your reply to my letter of today.
Dear Mr Scully
As your constituent I have to disagree with you. The fact that you feel you need to justify what’s happened by bringing in your person Circumstances illustrates a great deal. If this had been a straight forward issue rather than a questionable and possibly illegal one, your colleagues would not have felt the need to write.
1. Can I ask if Conservative party MPs and particularly ministers been told to write to their constituents to gauge theIt mood?
2.I guess a number of people will disagree with me on this and that is their prerogative. However, I followed the rules and govt advice about staying at home. I didn’t see my unwell elderly mother who is only 3 miles away. She, because of her medical condition doesn’t fully understand why she can’t see me and you can only imagine the upset and pain we’ve gone through..
3.What really angers me is that Mr Cummings thought the public would believe what he did was the right thing. The fact that he feels he’s not done anything wrong including driving to driving to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight is totally unbelievable! He seems to take the public for fools and illustrates his complete arrogance towards the feelings of many many people who have lost loved ones.
4. The Prime Minister has misjudged this issue as well as the decision on lockdown which came two weeks too late. Today we heard that 37000 people have lost their lives through this awful pandemic. Whatever way you look at it is poor for a country that WHO declared to be an exemplar in terms of our readiness.
Thank you for your comments Lata. I didn’t add my own experience as a justification, merely as context. Neither the Conservative Party nor the government have asked me to act in any way on this matter. I can see where constituents are going on this and it’s unfortunate that I disagree with the majority. Nonetheless of course, I will make sure that the government are aware of the strength of feeling on this from the many constituents that have got in contact. It’s right that I represent your views but would be wrong of me to change my opinion just on the numbers. Of course if things materially change then I’ll reflect on that. I’m always happy to admit when I get things wrong. At the moment, the above article represents my judgement based on what I’ve seen.
Thanks for your reply Paul. So all responders on here and on Twitter have almost unanimously viewed the the reason for the trip to Barnard Castle as ludicrous and you appear to accept this. So I do question your judgement..
As I have tweeted today, I met Sajid Javid at Worcester Park station promoting you as candidate for this constituency. I therefore voted for you. I feel my vote was wasted and I’m sorry to say you will not get it again.
Do you represent your constituents or the Tory party?
You were a lobbyist before entering parliament, so you are no stranger to fiction and half-truths. Sad then that you have chosen to believe the tripe given out by Cummings and No 10.
It would seem that your main regret is not about what Cummings did, but that the information was deliberately withheld until nearly two weeks after the event.
People at No 10 would have had to know the whereabouts of Cummings 24/7. His wife (who he does not trust to drive) made a broadcast describing the suffering of Cummings while he was ill. We now know that this was a beautiful piece of humbuggery.
Another disturbing thing is the number of people posting here or on Facebook who complain that you do not answer emails. I can understand that as an M P you will get lots of emails, you charge the exchequer a lot for your office staff so emails should be answered.
I wrote to you with a specific query that relates to the very department that you are involved with and to me as a constituent. No reply
A disappointing response and to link this to Brexit is utterly ludicrous.
1. He drives 260 miles over Easter weekend ( a coincidence? I think not) to visit family for childcare support without informing his boss- would any of us so that? As he clearly had no idea when he would return which conveniently was at the end of the bank holiday.
2. He could not ask Boris as he was sick – why didn’t he inform Dominic Raab who was deputising for Boris?.
3. Are we honestly expected to believe he chose his wife’s birthday to do an eye test with his young son in his car? Why on earth could his wife not drive?
4. He admitted his nieces did not enter his cottage but left food outside – which therefore means they looked after their son and this could have been done by anyone of a number of people in London what utter nonsense.
5. If he was in such dire straits and was so indispensable to the Government why would the Government machine not organise help for him with medical Support and food?
6. He never once apologised to all those people who have lost loved ones, his circumstances were identical to thousands upon thousands of people in the UK.
6. It is an absolute insult to our intelligence to suggest this was caused by the media which was his defence and one Paul that you chose to adopt, how utterly disappointing and to politicise this when you need to be representing your constituents to inform the Government that we don’t buy their spin on this.
This cannot be swept under the carpet it is wrong and the Trumpian approach I see here frightens the living daylights our of me.
Do your job Paul and pass on our unequivocal position on this which is what we can all quite clearly see from this appalling debacle!
The Conservatives look spineless as they appear not to be able to govern without an unelected advisor!! He isn’t even an elected MP.
Thoroughly disappointed- I contacted you as a friend of mine did the same in Pinner and her Conservative MP wrote back and said he completely agreed that DC should be sacked and I was encouraged that perhaps you also shared this logical and intelligent position.
Disappointed in the extreme.
You are a disgusting liar. I hope you cop the worst of what’s coming.
Dear Mr Scully
I have to disagree with Mr Cummings actions and I am disappointed in your comments. We were constantly told that for the vast majority of people covid19 is a mild illness. Why then did Mr Cummings assume that he and his wife would become seriously unwell? Or that he had to drive 260 miles just in case. I am sure that in the unlikely event they both had become seriously unwell and unable to look after their own child that a friend could have helped out. Or don’t they have any friends? When my husband and I had covid we managed to look after our daughter, as I am sure many thousands have too, without having to travel 260 miles to be near family, just in case! His reasons for their 60 mile round trip to a castle just to test his eyesight is ridiculous. I find it so difficult to listen to anyone defending him. Please think about this again. It is really important that you send a clear message to everyone that this is unacceptable behaviour so that they don’t change their behaviour, when we undoubtedly have a second wave of covid19. Thank you.
Dear Paul
I think we’ve had enough of “never apologise, never explain”. That Cummings was wrong is bad enough. I’m not suggesting that what he did is a resignation/dismissal matter, but for the PM to support him unequivocally showed, to me, a simple lack of spine on the part of the PM. In my view, the PM should have rebuked Cummings, warned him about his future conduct, and we move on. As it is, the PM has created a situation where Cummings’ future is the PM’s future. This is ridiculous and pitiable.
Best wishes and God speed, you have a heck of a job on your hands!
Nick
As a constituent, I’m disappointed but not surprised. You know his explanation is a lie. If it wasn’t a lie, he should lose his driving licence and have a visit from social services for a start.
If he had said, “I panicked. I see now it was the wrong thing to do, and I regret my actions” that would be one thing. Instead the government is undermining life-protecting advice in the interests of one man.
Using dead relatives for cover is low. Shame on you.
To be honest, citing the fact that I mentioned the death of my mother as ‘cover’ is a pretty low blow in response to an article where we disagree. My reason for mentioning this very personal point was to reflect on the sacrifices that so many people have made and the judgement calls that people have made over the last few weeks. It’s context not cover. The easiest way to achieve the latter would have been to avoid writing a 1200 word explanation of my thought process and to remain silent or issue a one-line tweet at the very least. However in contentious decision making I believe it best to explain my reasoning, not to convince.
You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Peddling lies and controlling the press – the loved ones of 62,000 people despise you for defending this couldn’t care less attitude of the unelected Cummings who is controlling the entire cabinet. Grow a spine and do the right thing – tell the truth about what Cummings is doing to you people and save our country – otherwise you are an absolute traitor!
Dear Mr Scully
I write as one of your constituents and you deserve credit for providing a personal response rather than repeating the mantra from number 10.
Given that approach, it was particularly sad to see you re-tweet your colleague Jonathan Gullis MP’s bizarre attempt to defend all your colleagues like Elliot Colburn who followed the Cummings mantra.
However Mr Colburn has done something today that you appear unable to do or perhaps are unwilling to do; Listen to his constituents. He has written to the PM saying that Mr Cummings should now resign:
https://www.elliotcolburn.co.uk/news/statement-dominic-cummings
I now hugely respect the MP for Carshalton & Wallington, he’s doing his job and listening to the people who elected and indeed those that did not.
Are you also willing to listen to your constituents? Over to you.
Dear Mr Scully
I understand your support for the PM and Mr Cummings, but I feel the public is being taken for idiots believing the story given by Mr Cummings. I feel for families confined in flats unable to go out with children. The Government has made mistakes at the start of the crisis, but the public may not forgive or forget the Cummings scandal at the next election. As I understand it Mr Cummings Manager was not aware of what he was doing.
Thank you Alan. Jonathan as far as I am aware was the originator of the comment that was used as a starting point for some of his cohort of new MPs to explain why he wasn’t rushing to judgement – a sensible move. I’ll continue to listen to constituents. On this matter, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion which is shared by many, perhaps even the majority, but I will reflect that strength of feeling to No10
Dear Mr Scully,
I was saddened to hear of the passing of your Mother and other family members. I too have written to you individually on this subject, and finalised my letter by telling you that you need not reply, I therefore thank you for sending me the link to your generic view on the matter.
I, like you, can in some ways understand why Mr Cummings made the decision to make these journeys.
What I don’t understand is why he was not honest in his statement, particularly with regard to his drive to Barnard Castle. His reasons for this journey are very suspicious, and is it a mere coincidence that this trip was made on his wife’s birthday? Why did he conveniently forget to mention this in his statement?, did he not consider it relevant to avoid even more suspicions?
I would be surprised if even you could admit to thinking this was at all plausible.
As a result of this unfortunate episode there is a considerable amount of displeasure amongst your valued constituents. I’m aggrieved to say that my own personal displeasure is amongst this. I respect you as a politician and a man, so much so that I am sure that these sentiments make you feel rather uncomfortable.
Mr Scully,
I’m confused you say that you can see the majority of your constituents believe DC did something wrong and no longer want to see this unelected man in a position of power within the government you are a member of. Why then will you only represent this feeling to No10 and not do your job and state publicly as the representative for Sutton and Cheam that your constituents want this man gone and therefor so do you?
Doing anything less than publicly supporting the beliefs of your constituents is a disgraceful dereliction of your duty as an elected member of parliament. Remember your own feelings come second to those who sent you to the commons to represent them. It’s clear from reading the replies below how those who elected you feel DO YOUR JOB
“Perhaps even the majority”
You mean the majority of the cabinet… As it’s Crystal Clear is not the view of the public and if that’s what you are saying then anyone with half an inch of brain will know you are telling porkie pies and never vote for you or the rest of them again.
Support for Cummings will cost lives nothing to do with brexit or politics in general… So thanks for that.
Like everyone else im very dissapointed in your response. You have chosen not to expres any opinionbut instead to just repeat facts and what Mr Cummings has said, this is frankly indefensible. To try and say it is about political point scoring is deeply callous, many of us, yourself included have lost loved ones, to try and couch this as “us vs them” cheapens the sacrifices we have all made (except Mr Cummings of course).
Finally, if you seriously think it is alright to strap a 4 year old child inro a car and drive them around for an hour when you were having trouble seeing then I have to question your judgement. Somone above suggested that at the very least he should be receiving a visit from the police and social services, that to most of us would be wholly appropriate considering the wreckless endangerment he inflicted on an innocent child. I note that you have chosen not to comment on this part of the story, by inference then you must think it is wholly appropriate for us to endanger children and other road users so? It strikes me that you as an intelligent man, rather than speak out and risk your career you are being willfully ignorant and toeing the party line. It’s a great shame, it cheapens you as a person and as you can plainly see from all the responses shows that you are frighteningly out if touch with your constituents and reality.
This is not about party politics, thousands have died, don’t cheapen our efforts by trying to play it as such
Thanks for your comment Peter. I thought my opinion was clear, that he has exercised his judgement within reason and should stay. I am acutely aware that my opinion isn’t shared by you or many others who have taken the time to get in touch but whereas I can empathise with your position, I can’t just change what I believe based on numbers, but on facts, consideration and discussion. That is why I took a while to reflect before coming to a conclusion and commenting. My point about ‘political point-scoring’ is the exact opposite. There are many people involved in politics who do want to see him go for other reasons. He is a totemic hate figure for the left and having shown disdain for the right of the Conservative Party has alienated them too. But the anger and frustration that has been shown by members of the public is about how they see his actions in the context of the emergency, not politics. There are plenty of parts of the story that I have not commented on as I do not wish to pick apart every report and action which pushes us down a pretty grim worm-hole. Similarly I’ve not commented as far as I remember on reports of other people involved in the political world who have been accused of transgressing various rules and guidance. My article and its conclusion is not published for a career move or for the good of my party of which Dominic Cummings is not a member but to show my thought process in coming to a different conclusion to many.
Thank you for replying, i very much appreciate you doing so. I must however reiterate, you have not expressed any opinion at all, you have simply stated that he made a judgement call, we all know that. We want to know if you think it was correct, you have deliberatly refused to state your veiw on that. You are paid to represent your constituents, its very clear by the responses on here that you are not doing that, you are woefully out of touch with the public feeling. We want to know if you think he acted appropriatly, you have not told us, we want to know if you think it is appropriate to test your eyesight by putting a 4 year old child in a car and driving them for an hour, you have not told us. Finally we want you to represent us and our feelings and desires, that is why you were elected, it is very clear you are not doing that. Your personal views, desires and ambitions should always come second to those of your constituents. You would do very well to look at the history of this borough and in particular the appalling MP we once had, Lady Olga Maitland. She took us totally for granted, refused to even live in the borough, ignored all our feelings and was voted out at the first opportunity turning the borough into a lib dem ward for 20 years, you are in grave danger of treating us with the same level of contempt
Paul, I am afraid that this is not a ‘move on from’ issue. Yes there are bigger issues but the handling of this is terrible and frankly brings into question the judgment of the government.
He broke the rules. Rules that he helped shape and create. Either he or his wife were symptomatic and therefore under no circumstances should have travelled risking spread of the disease, or they were not symptomatic and therefore there was no need to travel.
Anyone who says they have travelled 250 miles with a 4 year old without stopping at least for the loo is deluded.
Forcing government agencies such as the DVLA and the police to issue statements saying that if you are unsure of your eyesight, don’t get in a car, let alone with your child is surely gross misconduct in itself.
The utter lack of contrition demonstrated, the smirking as he left his press conference is just denigrating to everyone who has endured hardships through this lock down.
Forcing government ministers to embarrass themselves in the media trying to defend something they know to be pathetic.
The statements from the PM telling us we are all inferior parents for obeying lockdown and not doing what we all want to do.
The hypocrisy of forcing the resignation of scientists and health officers for doing no more than Mr Cummings have.
The fact that so much political capital is being burnt to defend an unelected bureaucrat by those who have spent the last 4 years railing against the same unelected bureaucrats is ridiculous. If this one man cannot be lived without, it shows what lack of talent there is in government right now.
This situation paints this government as amoral, uncaring, hypocritical and hugely incompetent as well as having a tin ear to the voters. Get him gone and then move on.
Mr Scully,
I don’t think you’ve backed a winner with this one. I too watched the live broadcast yesterday. I thought the pantomine season had already finished. Cummings was deliberately economical with the truth for as long as he could and when confronted, came up with, quite frankly, a cock and bull story, which was subsequently rubber-stamped by the PM (who seems unable to countenance life without him).
Who’s going to believe ‘I drove for an hour with substandard eye-sight to a beauty spot with my family to test if I could drive safely. Really? Further, surely his wife holds a full driving licence, so where was she in this fairy tale? Then there’s the question – if he’s so valuable to Government, you know as well as I do that a car and driver could have been made available within hours.
He fell over his own fabrications (until he was picked up on it) when he said he didn’t stop for petrol on the way there or back – 600-ish miles plus sightseeing mileage.
To me it’s simple: this man simply drove his family to his second / family home to avoid the worst of the outbreak in London. Remind me what the ‘guidance’ the rest of us follow says about that?
This issue matters to me and for the duration that Cummings remains in his post, I will remain a NON-Tory voter. Judging by the rest of the responses, so will many others. The ill-judged decision of Johnson and yourself backing Cummings will not be forgotten at the next election. I’m actually sorry this happened – I thought highly of Boris (and you).
Because we were being asked to do things that were fundamentally anti-democratic, in the name of the common good, we were told to obey rules that would have been more at home in a totalitarian state – but we did it.
We bought into this, not because we trusted, or had confidence in the government, but because we believed that it was necessary for the common good.
In return, we expected, assumed, trusted, that those asking us to do this would adhere to the same harsh rules of lockdown.
A betrayal of this moral contract by the Prime Minister’s principal adviser, who was party to the wording of the contract, goes way, way beyond an aide caught speeding, with his trousers down, or even with his fingers in the till. It’s about how little respect they have for the sacrifices – personal, social, economic, political, emotional- we have all made to save lives.
To drive all that way, at midnight, when it is difficult to be seen, with his Covid suspect wife and child, claim to stay in lockdown, except for a trip to a beauty spot on his wife’s birthday is criminal.
For the Prime Minister to support this makes him equally culpable, and now to see you join in with this support makes me sick.
Cummings must go, and if he doesn’t resign, should be sacked, and you should examine your conscience.
Yours,
Roger Keep
Perhaps your headline should have been “Deflect and move on”?
I have no interest in seeing Mr Cummings’ badly arranged bins and the media rightly challenging his nonsense as the other part of your website headline.
Perhaps a picture of one of Sutton and Cheam’s awesome medical professionals, supermarket workers, bus drivers, refuse collectors et al might have been more sensitive?
I hope you can “reflect” and “move on” the views of your constituents, i.e. do the job we pay you to do. Please tell the PM to sack Mr Cummings.
You disappoint me. You must know that the ridiculous explanation given by Cummings is farcical. His account of what and why he did what he did is worthy of a ‘Carry In’ film.
…and as they say on the Daily Briefings – “I have a comeback!” I have just seen the revelation that your fellow neighbouring MP, Elliott, has come to his senses, listened to his constituents and exercised a bit a common sense too, in backing calls for Cummings to go.
Come on Paul, listen to the vast majority of those around you. You know this story will not go away. Cummings is now toxic and for the good of the Country (and Party), he needs to go. You must now add your voice to those calls.
Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to share your detailed thoughts. I appreciate many of your points but disagree with several of your key conclusions.
First, I would broadly give the press credit in this instance. As you say yourself, it is a shame the information wasn’t released sooner. Number 10 was not forthcoming with simple answers to questions asked at the time of the event. Without the concerted efforts of journalists, the public would still be in the dark on this issue. Sutton families would not be aware of flexibility they are afforded in similar circumstances or may have been unduly fined for taking similar actions.
Second, Cummings’ adherence to the guidance ultimately seems back solved at best. Number 10 was clearly initially elusive as Cummings actions did not sit comfortably with the April guidance. Rather than acknowledging this discomfort and moving on, the government has chosen to use a technicality battle to argue that cummings was faultless. This is an unsettling response. I feel for those effectively told by the cabinet that they are bad parents if they followed the core lockdown message.
Third, Dominic’s explanation is undeniably questionable. I don’t want to fuss over details but am sure most others have come to the same conclusion – it’s all a bit off. I want those in Number 10 to be truthful, so challenging inconsistencies is important, particularly given the time before actual answers were given. The retrospective editing of his past blog post compounds this question of truthfulness and should not be glossed over. Do you really not share any of these concerns?
Fourth, your post makes a case for why we should move past Cummings, but my main concern is the government’s response. Many people are rightly upset that flexibility wasn’t made clear to them, or worried about the enforceability of future lockdowns if others see a perceived double standard. Boris seems to have viewed this as a political issue to be shut down asap, really disregarding people’s legitimate concerns. While originally an apology from either Cummings or the government may have sufficed, this does now appear to be a resignation issue.
The line used today has been “people can make up their own minds”, it appears the majority have come to unfavourable verdicts which then naturally erodes government trust at an important time. Please can you reconsider your position on this matter so the government can be seen to have the integrity needed to lead the continued coronavirus response.
Best wishes,
Robert
I am ashamed to have you as my MP. You should do the right thing and condemn this despicable behaviour. I will not vote for you or your party again!!
Dear Mr Scully
As one of your constituents I am disappointed in your support for this shyster, however I am not surprised. Can I point out the facts that you obviously haven’t grasped. He broke the lockdown rules. He stated yesterday in his televised statement 1. He returned to Downing Street the evening after he left in a hurry to go home to his wife who suspected she had COVID 19. The rules state if a member of your household is suspected of having COVID then you must stay home and self isolate for 14 days. 2. He left his home and drove over 260 miles to go to his parents house with his wife who was suspected suffering COVID. Again the guidance states you stay at home and self isolate for 14 days.3. He drove to Barnard Castle which is 30 miles from his parents house to test his eyesight!!!! Again the guidance states you stay at home, only leaving for essential shopping or medicines, daily exercise or to seek medical attention.
His circumstances were not exceptional. He said he needed childcare but no family member delivered any childcare whilst in Durham.
He actually endangered his son by placing him in a confined space (his car) for the 5 hour journey with an individual with suspected COVID 19. He also then endangered his family when he drove to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight!! I suspect this is a child safeguarding issue. He endangered the general public by travelling to Durham and spreading the virus up the country.
You are completely out of touch with your constituents. If we all followed our instincts then there would be anarchy , more people would have died and the NHS would have been overwhelmed.
The majority of the British public have made great sacrifices during this pandemic. People have resisted visiting sick and dying relatives because it was for the greater good. We have stayed at home. Yesterday your government undermined the gains that lockdown has achieved. We have already had in excess of 60000 deaths (FT modelling). Is your governments aim to have another 60000?
You have made your priorities clear: Dominic Cummings is more important than the British people. You sir have no integrity and are lacking a moral compass.
Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Matt Hancock, Gavin Williamson, etc etc etc and you should resign. You are not fit for office.
Yours
Yvonne Mason
Dear Mr Scully
I am very disappointed with your response.
It is perfectly clear that Mr Cummings went against the lockdown guidelines and several times. It is only his position as Mr Johnson’s senior political adviser that is preventing this being looked at objectively by Mr Johnson, the Cabinet and some Conservative MPs.
The lockdown rules were clear – Stay at Home and only leave your home for food, medication and exercise. If you or a member of your household had symptoms, then don’t even do that – self isolate.
These rules caused huge anxiety and unhappiness for many people but the vast majority stuck with the rules because it was the right and necessary thing to do.
Mr Cummings did not stick to the rules arguing exceptional circumstances. But these were NOT exceptional circumstances and never became so.
By his own admission, he did not try to get child care provision at home.
Instead, he left his home and drove 264 miles – potentially endangering people if he’d had problems on his journey. And this was IN CASE he needed child care.
He also went into work knowing that his wife potentially had Covid 19.
He went driving and sat in a beauty spot for 10 to 15 minutes – again against the lockdown rules. And his excuse of driving to test his eye sight cannot be in accordance with driving regulations.
He then relocated his family back to his London home.
And the list goes on.
What he should have done is Stay at Home.
By his own statement in an emergency he could have got childcare – if nothing else, he could have had a driver bring down his 17 and 20 year old nieces for a few days if needed.
If every family had acted in a similar way to Mr Cummings then the level of transmission, deaths and pressure on the NHS would have been much higher.
By condoning what Mr Cummings did, the Government and now you are undermining the Government’s ability to keep the public acting responsibly over social distancing and lockdown rules. This will result in more loss of life.
I ask that you reassess this based on the facts and not politics and insist for the sake of public health and safety that Mr Cummings be removed from his post.
This can help restore the Government’s ability to persuade the public to continue to respect lockdown rules which will be particularly vital when we get to Track and Trace.
Then we can move on.
Thank you Heather for your comment. I have covered some of the points elsewhere in this thread of comments but one point of clarification. The rules have never said stay at home apart from exercise, food and medication. That was the incredibly effective slogan. People who could not work from home and were not working for a company that was specifically asked to close have been working over the last few weeks, such as delivery drivers, warehouse workers, food retailers and many members of the government. Clearly when starting to show symptoms as Dominic Cummings believed he might, the stay at home message was more singular but there were exceptions. Although I do not expect this to change your mind on the matter under discussion, it is important in addressing the next stage of the emergency, hence the change of slogan to the more open Stay Alert, which is needed to encourage people to start looking at returning to a ‘new normal’ as schools reopen and business start to go back to trading. Saving lives remains the government’s top priority but restoring livelihoods and protecting businesses are also hugely important at this stage.
Dear Mr Scully
The message of stay home except for food, exercise and medication is simplified but this was the message repeated again and again. And importantly so. Exceptional circumstances of course allowed people judgement. But Dominic Cummings’ situation was not exceptional circumstances and you know that.
Which approach is within the rules if you fear your wife has covid and you may have it too? 1. Stay at home, try and get local childcare IF you need it and if you really have no other option have your nieces (who have said they will help) be on standby to assist you. Or 2. Drive 264 miles risking spreading Covid.
If Mr Cummings had said sorry I got it wrong, I apologise and Mr Johnson had said he got it wrong, we must all stick to the rules -then ok, let’s move on.
But the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and now you are saying Mr Cummings’ actions were acceptable. And that is the really serious thing here. There is already evidence of people being less inclined to respect lockdown rules as a result of Dominic Cummings’ actions and the Government’s response. This risks leading to more transmission, more loss of life and more pressure on the NHS.
Please stop trying to defend the indefensible.
The need to have people respect lockdown and social distancing is hugely important in this next phase and that is my concern
So as the Govenment’s main priority is saving lives and then restoring livelihoods, stop undermining the ability of Government to do this. Acknowledge that the majority of people do not think Dominic Cummings acted within the rules and ask for his removal from post. This is the right and proper thing to do now and as a result of the Government’s response to date, the only option now if its priorities are as you say.
I would like to begin by sharing my condolences for the loss and suffering you have incurred
However I am disappointed (although not at all surprised) that you have maintained your position as the good little lap dog.
I don’t believe (and by the looks of it I am not the only one) that the explanations that Cummings gave “cleared the matter up” as you say. In fact I feel it has raised even more questions than answers at this point.
I will try to summarise below the questions that I would like addressed in order that garner the full facts around the story:
1) if his wife was even expected of having Covid – why did he go back to 10DS after going home
2) if they didn’t believe she had symptoms (therefore possibly justifying the return to 10DS) then why did they make the decision to drive up to Durham. If they made the trip “just in case” then this was a breach of the “instructions”
(The rationale for one of the explanations above contradicts the validity of the other)
3) He admitted that at no point did he try and seek childcare arrangements in London before making the decision to go to Durham – how can this be considered reasonable? Justifying because he niece had offered to help is not a reasonable explanation.
4) He claims that the decision not to attempt to source childcare in London was at least in part down to security and harassment fears – at this point in time the country was in lockdown so nobody was really outside, if they were then why didn’t he call the police, why didn’t he look to source security arrangements in London?
I will ignore the practicalities of driving for circa 4-5 with a 4 year old who somehow didn’t need a toilet break.
5) He said he didn’t want to bother the PM with this decision as he was ill – then why not have the conversation with whoever was in de-facto charge (Raab I believe) or the health secretary? As by his own admission there was no immediate concern he could have taken the time to make 1 phone call?
6) As it turned out the entirely purpose (justification) of the trip was a moot point because he didn’t actually get any help with childcare there. (Admittedly not a question)
7) his father actually contacted the Durham police to discuss security – why was discussing security options relevant in Durham and not in London (as highlighted earlier).
8) why did the government deny any conversation with the police took place (when this was something that was very easily disproven)
9) whilst still a further breach – I am happy to excuse the fact that his wife who had Covid symptoms went to the hospital with the child – however why did he drive there whilst also symptomatic – the alleged purpose of re-locating up north was to lean on family support when when this was applicable he decided to risk spreading the virus.
10) if he was having issues with vision then why did his wife not drive them back to London? Does he still stand by the fact that driving a vehicle with a child onboard is a fair, justifiable and reasonable decision when he had concerns about his own fitness to drive
11) I understand the mirror and the guardian has been trying to get a comment from the government for a while – if this was “no big issue” then why did they continue to refuse to comment until the story had broken?
12) why did they continually deny that he had visited Barnard Castle until the point they realised he had been “caught”
The two questions above are extremely important as if this was no big thing they could have nipped it in the bus straight away rather than let it snowball as it has.
13) Why has no-one from the government apologised for the handling of this? The only “apologies” have been “I’m sorry that people feel this way”.
Now two questions for you:
1) if he is found out to be lying about this – would you immediately demand his sacking
2) given that the PM has staked his reputation on the integrity of Cummings account – would you also be asking for his resignation in this scenario?
What this has episode has proved (and wouldn’t have done if they could actually tell the truth) is:
1) there is clearly one rule for the majority and one rule for the cronies
2) We have a prime minister who is PM in name only. We now know very clearly who is in charge and making all the decisions.
As you elected representative maybe you could actually work to get the answers to some of these questions – it may not appease all but i am sure it would help with some
Your statement that the core message ‘doesn’t cover the endless possibilities that no set of reasonable guidelines could cover at all’ is a deliberate misrepresentation of a clear, simple and straightforward message. For the rest of us, there are no possibilities that were not expected to be covered by that core message of stay home and save lives. No reasons. No excuses. No ‘possibilities.’ Shopping for food yesterday in Sutton, I saw an elderly couple shopping. They were scared. They wanted to not stand too near people, to not get in the way, to get their shopping and to leave. She was confused and struggling with queuing; he was worried that she was too near people and in the end left her outside the shop, in her mask, whilst he finished shopping. People offered to let him go in front of the queue. These are people who are trying to do the right thing. Dominic Cummings’ behaviour is an insult to people like this, to everybody who has tried, and succeeded, in doing the right thing.
I’m also yet to meet any parent who would have done the same as Dominic Cummings, as has been suggested. I’ve been unwell and looked after my children. Surely we all have? It’s part and parcel of being a parent. His circumstances were so very very unexceptional.
The refusal to acknowledge that any of this behaviour warrants an apology, and the lack of recognition that these actions are the antithesis of the vast majority of the actions of a population who have acted with integrity, care and compassion for immediate families and wider communities is deeply distressing and moves me to tears.
Much like yourself, your fellow MP was waiting for the facts before commenting:
https://m.facebook.com/110302773707610/posts/270319637705922/
Party time?
Apologies, here’s the link:
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-police-break-up-birthday-party-at-tory-mp-rob-robertss-house-11995333
As our MP, Mr Scully ridiculed earlier; https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY5DQoBWsAIxGG2?format=jpg&name=900×900
One rule for…..
Rob Roberts split up with his wife a few weeks ago. He’s been living in a flat in London on his own for most of lockdown. Sometimes the newspapers cover things for the interest of the public rather than the public interest – a subtle but sometimes personally devastating difference.
Dear Paul,
As a Constituent who has also lost my mother in a Care home, who I was unable to see in her last days and gained a granddaughter nine weeks ago who I have not yet seen I have no sympathy for Mr Cummings, his tissue of lies and wreckless actions. He shows total contempt for the electorate and has no qualification to be at the heart of Government. The PM has lost all credibility fir backing him as have the cabinet who have just tweeted the central message which no doubt was dictated by D Cummings. You should serve the interest of your constituents and the country and call for the sacking of this destructive individual.
Dear Paul
I am sorry for your recent bereavements. I’m very glad you were able to attend their funerals – I couldn’t attend my Aunt’s who died of COVID because I was obeying the lockdown rules
I am very disappointed, but not surprised that you have decided to throw your lot in with the government’s lies and shameful cover up of an unelected bureaucrat’s actions.
The government’s response to Cummings flaunting the lockdown regulations makes a mockery of all of us who did what was required for public safety. That your party leader is willing to put the interests of his SPAD above the interests of the country speaks volumes.
The rank hypocrisy displayed is deeply offensive
Any 2nd wave will be harder to control as we see that the regulations don’t actually apply if you’re a friend of the prime minister, it’s just for us plebs
A couple of questions:
Why on earth did he get to give a presser in the back garden of No.10? Who the hell is he to do that
Just what does he have on Johnson to elicit such loyalty?
I look forward to an answer to my recents letters to you, you said yesterday on twitter you were a little behind on your post bag, I don’t know how as we’ve all been stuck at home, apart from Cummings that is
He has to go – & as a deeply ambitious man, you should be able to see that you’ve backed the wrong horse on this
Finally – We stayed in, We protected the NHS, We saved lives – Cummings did not, his actions actually endangered others in the future.
Finally –
We stayed in,
We protected the NHS,
We saved lives – Cummings did not, his actions actually endangered others in the future.
Thank you for your comments Eleanor. I was able to go to 2 of the 3 funerals. I assume the garden was picked so the journalists could attend in person whilst socially distancing. Regarding my correspondence, I have been mainly at home but in my ministerial role, I’m responsible for workers’ rights (furloughing), access to finance (the five loan schemes), small business, retail, hospitality (grants), consumers (holiday refunds etc), postal services (keeping post offices open and the mail delivered) and the Minister for London (tackling temporary hospitals & mortuaries, keeping transport open and planning the economic recovery for our capital city). That’s tying me down from keeping on top of some things I’m afraid. Not complaining but I’m sorry for the delay.
Hello Paul
Thank you for your prompt reply, I do understand how busy an MP is, I number several among my friends. And I am genuinely sorry for your losses – made more difficult by being unable to be with the many of the ones we love.
However I really don’t think you have answered my points unfortunately.
I feel you are doing yourself no favours here. And like that you are open to re evaluating your opinion. The public is angry & while I admire a principled stance, I do feel you have backed the wrong horse here which will harm your standing in the House, & by association, my borough.
I would never expect an MP to forgo his own opinion to encompass mine – Burke was so right about a representative democracy.
But for your own sake, please have a rethink – this isn’t going away & the closer you tie yourself to Cummings & Johnson, the further you will fall when they go & they will go. Nobody likes being taken for a fool
Eleanor
Mr Scully,
I am sure that the responses on this page provide a small indication of the mood of the nation at this time. Indeed, I can assure you having spoken to friends, family members, and colleagues over the past few days (many of whom are staunch, lifelong supporters of the Conservative party) that not a single one of us can even begin to fathom the government’s response to this situation.
Dominic Cummings’ actions throughout April, while incomprehensible to many of us, would have at least been forgivable (to some) should even a small element of remorse have been shown. Failing that, at least an acknowledgement that his actions were ill-judged. Unfortunately, that seems beyond Mr Cummings.
But the response of the government has been, quite frankly, appalling. To see ministers falling over themselves to defend and even applaud Cummings’ actions – despite the untold damage that such a position is clearly doing to trust in the government’s public health message in the midst of a pandemic – has been nauseating. And I’m extremely disappointed that you have now joined that club.
Can you honestly suggest that you would have responded similarly if such an incident had happened involving the chief adviser to a Labour government? Honestly?
This is not about political point scoring. This issue has not resonated with the public because of the media circus that has followed. It has hit hard because it has affected each and every one of us. And, on a very basic level, it is about what is right and what is wrong. And how you respond when you are perceived to be ‘in the wrong’, even if you (quite unbelievably, to be honest) cannot see why. A government that is unable to assess its flaws, learn from its mistakes, and do what is in the best interests of the country, is quite simply unfit to govern. I would urge you to reconsider your support.
Sorry to hear about your losses. God be with them and your family.
If Cummings was not a Tory you would be baying for his blood.
He obviously broke the rules and as an unelected leaded of your party he must be sacked.
He only remembered what he had done to cover when he was seen. What else did he do?
Please reply to this question. How would you have felt should your son be an aa or rac breakdown engineer and was called to a breakdown on Cummings’ car, he contacts coved-19 and subsequently gave it to his son and mother, who may be in her 80’s?
This would also have been an issue should he had broken down!
We were told to STAY AT HOME. No other options were available to mere members of the public.
Over 70% of the public want him to go. I am confident he will go soon.
Please take a step back, ignore further career promotion ideas, speak for your constituents and get him out.
Thank you should you have read this far.
Thank you for your comments Robert. I would hope that I would not have taken a partisan view. From memory I haven’t commented on the reported accusations of transgressions from a number of Labour MPs and a LibDem peer reported to have ‘taken advantage’ of the government financial support. I’ve tried to keep my head on the job of Small Business and Retail Minister, protecting as many jobs and businesses as I can and leaving the party politics to others. In the main, this emergency situation has been conducted with scrutiny but little tribalism. I’m aware that I am at odds with the many constituents who have got in touch but have tried to explain why I disagree. This is not for the sake of my career which I could have done through a swift obseqious tweet rather than a 1200 word explanation.
Please accept my sympathies on your bereavements, made harder by these times.
Thank you for publishing your views on the Cummings affair. I disagree wholeheartedly with the conclusions that you have reached.
I will not reiterate the points already made about Cummings defence in previous responses.
I would like to take issue with your comment that Cummings acted :
‘in good faith based on his understanding of the guidance, in the best interest of his family and his position within the heart of government at a particularly crucial time without setting himself ahead of others.’
Dominic Cummings and Mary Wakefield were not members of the public panicking while trying their best to work out what do when looking at legislation, guidelines and statements by ministers. As you point out, Cummings has a position at the heart of government. He has attended meetings of SAGE, and he would have known that the guideline on which he relies was introduced to help individuals in abusive situations. He would also have known that, in the unfortunate circumstance of both parents becoming totally incapacitated someone could have assisted them under Regulation 6 (2) of the relevant government legislation. Unlike most other people in the country, he also had direct access to medical, public health and legal experts for advice, advice which by his own admission he did not seek.
We are now in a position where the government seeks to ease lockdown regulations gradually to reopen the economy, something which must eventually happen. We are also in the position of having one of the highest death rates in Europe, and not yet having full testing or track and tracing in place. Having Cummings and his backers in government giving a clear signal to everyone that you can rely on your own instinct is the last thing that is needed. His actions have also gone a long way to destroy the consensus of the last few weeks.
I hope that you will reconsider your position on this matter.
Dear Mr Scully,
I am writing to you today to press upon you my profound feelings of disgust at your statement on your blog ‘Reflect but move on to defeat Covid-19’.
By attempting in the words of another of your ‘constituents’ “defend the indefensible” you have lost the respect and voter support of my household of 5 adults.
Both of my grandfathers in law died during the pandemic and I witnessed the heart break of my inlaws, husband and brother in law as they were not able to say their goodbyes in person, support their relatives as they died awful and lonely deaths or come together mourn together as a family.
Dominic Cummings absolutely broke the rules. I have close friends and family where both parents were sick with children that were vulnerable/disabled, and they were not able to access the support of their families and friends because they were following the rules that were VERY clearly laid out.
The Conservative party is more than one man, and what has become clear is that by trying to protect Mr Cummings, Boris Johnson and by extension the entire Conservative party, care more about the political survival of one man, than ensuring that the public health message is upheld vigorously so that the public as a whole buy into the measures needed to combat this hideous virus. Accountability is a strict necessity to ensure the public’s trust.
I would like a response to the above, not a cut and paste standard response, but an explanation in why you are towing the party line rather than representing your constituents feedback.
Dear Mr Scully
As one of your constituents it is very disappointing to see you defending the indefensible. I cannot really add much more to the eloquent replies you have received so far, but I want to say one thing.
If you truly believe that a man as intelligent as Mr Cummings decided that the best way to test whether he was ready for a long drive was to strap his 4 year old child in the back and drive for an hour with impaired vision to a local beauty spot (on a day that just happened to be his wife’s birthday) then you are a liar or a fool.
Whichever one you are does not reflect well on you.
Dear Mr Scully
It is clear that you have given detailed consideration to the issues. However, this is a matter of opinion. I do not accept that this debacle has been stoked by the media. I listened to Mr Cummings’ press statements and, like many of your constituents, have made my own judgement of the situation. I think his position is untenable. I believe he has put public co-operation at risk and willingness to abide by the rules, for the benefit of the community as a whole, in jeopardy. He has made the police’s very difficult job, more so. My assessment is that he cannot stay in office and is a liability.
Please will you advise:
how many letters and emails have you had on this issue since Monday?
how many are in favour of Mr Cummings staying?
how does this volume of mail compare with other weeks during the pandemic?
Your colleague, Elliot Colburn MP in Carshalton and Wallington has called for the resignation of Dominic Cummings on the basis of the response from his constituents.
On this issue, I am not asking you as my MP to give me your opinion. I am asking you to represent me. Please re-consider your position.
Thank you Mandy for your comments. I have received many responses to the situation from constituents, the majority taking a different view to mine. I am not a delegate but a representative charged with weighing up the facts as I see them. I will of course ensure that your view and the strength of opinion is heard at the highest level, representing you to those in charge of government but my view remains the same unless there is a material change in the information to hand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52835982
Is this the kind of material change in the information to hand you need?
Now, do your job and work for your constituents.
Dear Mr Scully,
Like everybody else who has commented so far, I’m afraid I find your response extremely disappointing and wholly unconvincing. There’s no need for me to repeat all the arguments eloquently made by others here, but I’d like to alight on two points you’ve made.
First, you say that ‘he and his wife suspected that they were both falling ill with coronavirus’. This is not the case. While his wife may have been feeling unwell, by his own account Mr Cummings had no symptoms when he made the journey from London to Durham. Moreover, after coming into contact with his wife, he went back to work, potentially spreading the disease among the very people leading the country’s response to this pandemic.
Related to this, you also mention his ‘family’s exceptional circumstances’. What exactly was exceptional about their circumstances? One parent feeling unwell and another parent with no symptoms, worried about the possibility of being incapacitated at some future date. Regardless of the question of their ability to make the necessary arrangements from their London home, you must surely know that this did not constitute an exceptional circumstance as laid down in the guidelines.
As for the notion of a 60 mile round trip to a local beauty spot for the purpose of testing his eyesight, I think enough has been said. I noted you skipped over this part entirely.
You entreat people to ‘move on’, but I think this misses the very point. Cummings’ actions and the free pass he’s been given by the Prime Minister have critically undermined trust not only in your government, but in any public health message you put out from this point forward. The embarrassing spectacle of Conservative MPs and Ministers coming to his defence in recent days is only serving to compound this further. There can only be a ‘moving on’ once Mr Cummings either resigns or is sacked. This issue is not going away and I’d urge you to reconsider your position.
My condolences on your losses.
I think it would have been better to remain silent than to publish this.
Firstly this pushes the dubious story that the media are in any way responsible for this story. They’re not. I read very little of the MSM, but when I do it’s from all sides of the spectrum. I’m glad the press eventually revealed this cover up. It’s an insult to our intelligence to suggest that anyone but Dominic Cummings is to blame for his actions. It is his actions that are so offensive, not the reporting of them.
Second this is promoting the idea that DC’s actions were justified, reasonable, and within the rules, when I think it’s very clear they weren’t. To suggest otherwise is an insult to our intelligence. Retrofitting his behaviour to the rules just looks even more slippery, including the implausible “driving 60 mile round trip to ‘test my eyes’, rather than a day out on my wife’s birthday”. As someone pointed out – what if drunk drivers made that claim?
Finally, the idea that this is linked to Brexit is derisory and paranoid. Brexit is completely over, and it looks so trivial now compared to COVID. To assume it’s an old grudge match seeks to minimise what he did – they have yet again missed the point completely.
I’m not sure whether “missing the point” is a kind of Orwellian ‘groupthink’, paranoia, a siege mentality, or just an attempt to obfuscate the issue. But it has now tarred everyone who has fallen under the spell of “party command” and come out to defend the indefensible.
What’s so problematic about the word “Sorry”?
Dear Mr Scully
I’m sorry for the losses of thousands of people, including your own. As the senior adviser to our government, I would question Mr Cummings’ judgements.
1 Why did he return to work on the afternoon of March 27 when any reasonable person would have suspected that they had the disease & therefore would have put their colleagues at risk?
2 Why didn’t Mr Cummings make any effort to seek help from people in London?
3 How is driving for 60 miles the correct way to test your eyesight? After 30 miles he said that ‘he felt a bit sick’ and had to stop the car. Why did he then judge that it would be safe to drive, in his words, ‘nearly 300 miles’ the next day?
4 He went to Durham because he thought there was a risk that he might need childcare, which in the end he didn’t. Before undertaking his 2 journeys why didn’t he think of the risks to other people (eg in the event of car break-down/accident) when he suspected that he had or when he did have covid19?
5 Why did he retrospectively alter his blog? Any adviser who alters their blogs to assist their case is open to question.
6 I conclude from the above 5 points that Mr Cummings makes serious misjudgements. A person capable of such misjudgements should not be at the heart of government helping to make decisions about the lives of all UK citizens.
Regards
Dear Mr Scully,
I quote you “His approach to government gives us a chance to build an approach that is often pushed by those sick of the normal state of affairs”.
Unfortunately, Mr Cummings story doesn’t stack up, even with all the planning into the excuses that have gone into it and sadly, he is now part of the “normal state of affairs” as he got caught but will not step down (as Prof Ferguson did) or even apologise for his actions.
If a senior advisor to the government cannot find child care support in Islington if it might possibly be needed but needs to go to Durham then I would doubt his competentency.
Regards,
Simon Passey
Dear Mr Scully,
Just looking at other posts you have written, it appears that this has attracted the most comments by a considerable margin, including the articles you have written on Brexit.
I wonder why people are more engaged with this topic than others ?
Regards,
Simon Passey
Yes, Mr Scully, you are correct in saying “Reflect but move on to defeat Covid-19”. But one major obstacle has to be overcome first, and that is to remove Dominic Cummings from office. Failure to do so seriously undermines the credibility of the PM and government, the legal system and the efforts of millions of British people collectively obeying the lockdown laws for mass benefit. STAY AT HOME, SAVE LIVES!
The facts are very simple – Dominic Cummings has broken several laws and appears to believe that he has done nothing wrong. On questioning, he shows absolutely no remorse and no need for an apology!
Furthermore and even more appalling is that the PM is backing his attitude and behaviour, as are many senior government ministers. Is this what we voted for? Hypocrisy and the absence of morals, integrity, fairness and justice.
STAY ALERT… We are alert!! The PM and government cannot reasonably expect us to tolerate this appalling incident. It’s an insult to the intelligence and lockdown efforts of the electorate (millions of people)!
Perhaps the PM should refer to a similar situation in Scotland a few weeks ago, where the lady concerned had the moral fibre and backbone to resign. I have no doubt that had she not done so, Nicola Sturgeon would have requested her resignation.
Lastly, I am shocked and disappointed that you have chosen the path that you have regarding this incident. I shouldn’t be surprised, but one does live in hope… A life without hope is not worth living.
Completely agree with the comments above. Your response is beyond pathetic and treats your constituents with complete contempt. It’s your responsibility to reflect the views of your constituents who are asking for Dominic Cummings resignation and if you do not you are not doing your job as our MP. Dominic Cummings actions and attitude are a slap in the face to every one of us who have made sacrifices and in particular NHS staff and carers who have risked their lives. The least they expect is their MP to have the backbone to reflect their views rather than one who cowardly tows the party line.
“I have a record of standing up for local people.
I remain determined to provide the people of Sutton with a strong voice in Westminster“
These words appear on the home page of your website. http://www.scully.org.uk/
Do your job and give your constituents their strong voice. Dominic Cummings has broken the spirit of the lockdown regulations and remains unapologetic.
Have you the courage to declare how many of your constituents have contacted you to express their disgust over the handling of this matter?
Mr Scully
The strength of feeling of your constituents against Dominic Cummings’ actions and the Government’s response is loud and clear from the unprecedented number of comments you have had to this post compared to other recent posts – even Brexit.
So please stand by the undertaking on your homepage, provide your constituents with “a strong voice at Westminister ” and call for Mr Cummings’ removal from his position.
Otherwise, change your homepage to add “unless it suits me politically not to do so”.
Mr Scully
I have been following events regarding this breach of Lockdown by Dominic Cummings the most senior member of Boris Johnson’s staff The architect of Brexit and the major contributor to the Lockdown guidelines which he subsequently revoked.
I read your articles and could not believe that you have reached the conclusion that he complied with his own and this governments advice to STAY HOME but travelled to see his family.
Life experience has taught me many times when dealing with entitlement and privilege it’s always one rule for those that have power and one rule for everybody else.
Stand up and represent your constituents and join your 60 plus colleagues who know Dominic Cummings breached the Lockdown ruling.
As a constituent of yours, I agree with all of the previous comments and am very disappointed that you cannot see what is plainly obvious to everybody who is not taking a party-political view – that Mr Cummings, the PM’s chief aide, broke several lockdown rules. I note as well that the previous Health Secretary and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer both say Mr Cummings broke the rules.
In the meantime, the current Health Secretary lectures me that it is my ‘civic duty’ to follow test and trace instructions after he supported the undermining of public health requirements by the Prime Minister’s chief aide!
As you can see, my ‘instinct’ is not to ‘move on’. I’ve never been particularly political, apart from always voting, and this disgraceful episode had ensured that I will not be voting for you in the future.
Paul,
I am one of your constituents and having voted for the Conservatives at the last election, I’m disgusted the way this fiasco has been handled by the government. Your comments mean you can’t count on my vote in the next election, granted that may be some time away. Dominic Cummings attempt to explain away his clear breach of lockdown rules was laughable and the Conservative party are making fools of the electorate. I don’t want to be presided over by an elite cabal that does as it pleases and refuses to admit any wrongdoing.
Dear Paul. I am very disappointed that the Prime Minister and so many of his MPs have colluded in lies against the electorate who trusted you. I think it’s fair to say the Conservatives didn’t win the last election, more that Labour lost it. The Prime Minister says the people will make up their minds and I believe he will see that at the first by-election and probably every one after it. I don’t want to be part of a witch hunt but rules were broken and a sorry would have been a better approach.
Firstly, I am sorry for your loss, and send condolences to your family during a difficult time.
However as your constituent I have to agree with the comments above. If Dominic Cummings had come to that press conference apologetic and explained as a distraught father he was trying his best, the public would not be reacting like this. When Laura Kuenssberg tried to give him an out by asking if he regretted what he did he said no. He doesn’t regret breaking the rules so why should anyone continue to follow the rules if the chief aide doesn’t regret breaking it on at least 2 occasions we know of.
I just think ignoring it undermines everything the UK has sacrificed to keep control of this virus. He does need to go to show that the PM appreciates what everyone else did to control the virus. I agree with Martin though I doubt you’ll get my vote next time round.
Dear Mr Scully
I’m sorry but when the Government told us to “stay at home” it didn’t say stay at home but exercise your own judgement or suggest any other qualification. It said stay at home.
Dominic Cummings appears to have considered his own judgement superior to that. Furthermore it seems that he not onl drove to Durham but made another trip while he was there. There was not one voluntary word of apology until he appeared at No 10 later.
There must be many asking themselves what authority the Government now has to ask them to do their civic duty if it seems that a senior advisor doesn’t do his and the Prime Minister endorses that
Dear Mr Scully,
I have read the article and the comments upon it; as many of the comments say, the implausibility of much that Mr Cummings said in his Press Conference is clear to see.
The arrogance and special pleading of Mr Cummings supported by the PM and others is shocking.
I am sure we would all like to move on but that is unlikely to happen given the strength of feeling in the public mood.
I will not be voting for you in any future election.
Kind Regards
Charlotte Dee
The image you have used is not the story here – the ‘media’ did not drive 30 miles, he did. The comments above demonstrate how out of touch your point of view is. Voters in this constituency have a long memory – you have blown it.
Dear Paul,
Durham Police have now announced that Dominic Cummings did break lockdown rules, specifically regarding his trip to Barnard Castle. Your PM and leading cabinet ministers have insisted that he didn’t. The police are impartial and rightly can act as arbiter.
Now this information has come to light, will you change your position on what you have stated, and will you now apologise to those constituents who correctly said that he had.
I too lost a close relative a few weeks before the lock down – in my case a much loved son. So I offer condolences on your loss. That said I agree fully with all of the comments made by others in respect of your position on Dominic Cummings and the PM’s handling of the issue. Cummings clearly broke the rules in going to Barnard Castle and I have just heard that Durham Police have stated that this was a “minor breach” of the regulations and are taking no further action. This I suspect is a politically expedient conclusion but it still undermines the PM stance that Cummings did nothing illegal. There is also the fact that Cummings lied when he claimed he went on a scenic drive of 60 miles on his wife’s birthday to test his eyesight. Given the strength of feeling of all of the constituents who have so far commented on your response, will you now change your position on Dominic Cummings or continue to turn a blind eye to his irresponsible actions? Your reputation as an MP of integrity hangs on this.
Dear Paul,
I have read your comments and the comments of other Sutton voters and conclude that you are backing a looser. The police have made it clear that he did break the regulations so when will you resign??
Driving a car over 30 miles to a beauty spot to test out your ‘weird eyes’, with your sick wife and a young child aboard would be the height of irresponsibility and totally unbelievable to the majority of your constituents. Mr Cummings pathetic statement reminded me of a page from an Enid Blyton story.
You try to put blame on the press, tell that to the Tory voters and to the 70 plus furious Conservative MP’s who want Cummings to resign.
Nonsense the police have not it clear that he broke the regulations at all. They have said he “might” have. That is completely different.
Durham Police also said that if they had stopped him on the way to Barnard Castle they would have sent him back. So, “might” raises the possibility that he broke the rules and this later part of their statement actually confirms the fact that he did. Why would he otherwise be sent back if stopped?
The Secret Barrister
@BarristerSecret
Lots of excitement about “might”.
The reason for this is that the police don’t determine breaches; they form an opinion. If that opinion is disputed, a court will decide.
In this context, “might” means the police concluded it *was*. Hence they say they would have sent him back.
I fail to understand how you continue to back Dominic Cummings’
actions despite millions of ordinary people around the country
thinking otherwise. You seem to be singing from the same hymn
sheet as the Prime Minister and Health secretary – both of
whom, and others who support them, consider us as fools!
Had I ignored the government’s instructions and gone to visit
my dying wife in the Care Home, would I be let scot free as
Cummings has? Can you feel the pain that I and my family feel?
This is a clear case of ‘one law for the rich and influential,
another for the rest of us.
Quite honestly, I find your comments quite disgusting.
Mervyn Maciel
Dear Paul,
Firstly I’m sorry to hear of your family deaths.
Secondly I appreciate your writing a personal response rather than the copy/paste party line we’re seeing from so many other Conservative MPs.
You are well aware from my previous emails to you that I disagree with the Tory party on a lot (well, everything…) and I’m afraid this is no exception. Cummings’ behaviour is absolutely inexcusable, and the efforts to brush it under the carpet stink to high heaven. That includes trying to dismiss attempts to hold this man – and his employers – accountable as “party political axe-grinding”. That is grossly unfair and an affront to justice. It can not and will not stand, and the continued attempts to silence people and deny us justice are simply unsustainable.
His “story” has more holes than Swiss cheese – from the apparent lack of need to stop for fuel and comfort breaks, right through to the need to test his eyesight, with a child in the car, by driving a 60 mile round trip. Even a semi-conscious Inspector Clouseau would be able to spot the problems here. It is a fiction – 100%, without any doubt.
My words will not change your mind. But I urge you – please, reflect deeply on the fact that this shameful behaviour, and the continued shamelessness of senior Tories such as the PM, Gove, etc. in defending Cummings will put more LIVES AT RISK. That is the bottom line. Cummings’ actions have completely jeoparised public health messaging and understandably so:
Why should people give a damn what the government recommends/advises/commands them to do, when their own will get away with doing the opposite?
Why lay down rules when they can be interpreted to within an inch of their lives?
What stops me citing my eyesight (I’ve been short-sighted since the age of 5, just coincidentally) as an excuse for violating any lockdown rule?
What stops me saying “I believe my actions are justified” as an excuse to break lockdown rules?
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander Paul.
I honestly don’t know how most of your colleagues sleep at night. I can only conclude that they lack any capacity whatsoever for compassion and self-reflection. Above all, I hope to make it through the next four years without completely breaking down mentally, and that we as people will finally wake up and boot the Tories out.
Thank you again for your response.
I am quite saddened and disappointed that you have taken this ‘official line’ position to be honest. In my mind it’s not even the actions that Mr Cummings took which are the most important issue- it is the way they have been justified and defended by those who should have known better but are afraid of jeopardising their own jobs. My support for you unfortunately has gone.
Thanks for your email and the link to this on your website. I could repeat all the criticisms of Dominic Cummings and all the arguments that support why his statement was a modicum of truth wrapped up in fictional justification but instead I’ll just say that the Conservative party have lost me as a supporter after 40+ years of voting blue. Never again as they have let the party and their personal ambitions take over from what’s good for the country and its people.
And let’s not forget among this debacle the UK now leads the world in excess deaths/pop since March. Shocking.
Dear Paul,
I am very sorry for your losses. Please accept my sincere condolences.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking in respect of this matter. There is, however, a serious error in your thinking that I must point out, for it is central to your conclusion on this whole sorry episode.
You say this: “Based on what I heard throughout the whole press conference, I believe that he answered the central point that he acted within the guidance allowing for his family’s exceptional circumstances. Some people may disagree with some of his judgement calls, but I believe that he made them in good faith based on his understanding of the guidance, in the best interest of his family and his position within the heart of government at a particularly crucial time without setting himself ahead of others.”
I appreciate you are not a lawyer and may not be familiar with the detail of the law on lockdown. However, I am. Indeed, I have four degrees in law, including a Ph.D, and I have had research published in some of the world’s leading legal journals. And so I offer my assistance to you, in the hopes of addressing this misjudgment, by setting out the legal rules below. Essentially, there are two key points. First, Mr Cummings plainly did not act within the rules. Second, he did not have any discretion under the rules to make “judgment calls” about how best to act in the circumstances; the relevant law grants no such discretion (and indeed removes whatever general discretion we would in other circumstances have).
Section 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, which is the law governing restrictions on individuals’ movement during the lockdown and which came into force on 26 March 2020 (the day before Cummings made his journey north) makes clear the general rule: “(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.” The section goes on to provide an exhaustive list of matters that may constitute a 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 … 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(3), 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.
Section 9 provides that a contravention of section 6 is a criminal offence.
These are the only possible “reasonable excuses” recognised by the law in respect of section 6. Acting in an intuitively “reasonable” fashion is not sufficient. Mr Cummings’ actions do not fall within any of the prescribed reasonable excuses. Indeed, we have today heard that Durham Police have fined two other people for making the same journey from London to Durham in breach of the Regulations. Nowhere in the Regulations does it say that a person may simply do whatever they think is in the best interests of their child or their family, however reasonable it might seem to the lay person (and I note that it seems very few people consider Mr Cummings’ actions reasonable in any sense). Perhaps you might say that this should have been written into the Regulations, but it was not – and Mr Cummings, having been central to the government throughout this time – knew that. So do the people of the UK. And because the people of this country realise that the Regulations permit no such discretion, very many people have not acted as Mr Cummings did. A significant number of them have died or lost close relatives.
A central element of the rule of law is that the law applies to everyone equally. If you believe that the rule of law is important, and that the law should be applied as it is written, there is simply no plausible way in which you can rationally conclude that Mr Cummings has not committed an offence. The rules are plain to see, and he has admitted to all of the material facts needed to establish that he acted in breach of the Regulations.
Mr Cummings’ behaviour is not a matter of individual judgment. Nobody – Mr Cummings included – is given discretion by the Regulations to come to an individual judgment about what is best for their family in the circumstances. Those decisions are obviated by the existence of the Regulations, which sets clear rules of general application; the decision as to what is best in the circumstances is taken out of our hands and is governed by the law.
You are of course right that you are not a delegate. You are elected to make your best judgment on the best interests of your constituents and the nation. The late legal scholar Ronald Dworkin encouraged us to put matters in their “best light”. I would ask you to take the time to consider what I have said carefully, and take seriously the opportunity to revise your thinking in light of it. In that way, you can give us your (I hope reconsidered) judgment in its best light.
In contrast to this lot I fully support your stance on this issue and you will have my vote in future because I am not an outraged Liberal Democrat pretending I previously supported you
Mr Cummings and his family have been subjected to a vicious and orchestrated media campaign designed to unseat him. It has consisted of a mix of facts, embellishments, less than credible witness accounts and at least one outright lie. The timing of it with just a few weeks to go before the Brexit trade talks deadline is not a coincidence. It was nothing short of a nasty dirty tricks campaign and has been given short shrift as it should have been. The hypocrisy of those calling for his head has been staggering with many of them proven to have committed far more egregious breaches than Mr Cummings was accused of. For a start none of the media scrum outside his house were observing the social distancing requirements.
Finally Durham police say in their statement Mr Cummings “might” have committed a breach on his trip to the castle not that he “did”.
Please cite the embellishments, less than credible witness accounts and one “outright lie” you mention.
Please also go ahead and cite “the hypocrisy of those calling for his head” with some verifiable examples of who you’re referring to, and what the egregious breaches were.
Please also explain what on earth this matter has to do the Brexit trade talks given that a) Cummings plays no role in the negotiations and b) the other party in the negotiations, the EU, has no interest in the Cummings affair nor does it compromise or change any aspect of their published negotiating stance.
We’re listening.
Durham Police also said that if they had stopped him on the way to Barnard Castle they would have sent him back. So, “might” raises the possibility that he broke the rules and this later part of their statement actually confirms the fact that he did. Why would he otherwise be sent back if stopped?
I think you have misjudged the feeling of many many people feel about this. Blaming this on an “orchestrated media campaign to out him” is totally incorrect. Papers which have been in full support, like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph have also come out in being critical of Mr Cummings and the government when their normal position is to be supportive.
To associate this with Brexit is quite frankly insulting. Firstly, as I’m sure you are aware Brexit happened on 31st January. Secondly, the trade talks are between governments. If you so strongly feel that the removal of one man will negatively affect those trade talks (which of course he isn’t officially part of) means that it shouldn’t make any difference to the outcome.
The issue central to this is that the man who is a central part of the governments whole approach to Coronavirus, who has been present in most of the cabinet and strategy meetings did knowingly break the lockdown rules he was part of. It has given a green light to individuals thinking they don’t have to follow the rules and that is evident in our borough and beyond. It’s about government trust, which approval ratings have dropped 20 points in 4 days which I believe is the biggest drop in that time period in history. It’s also about a government that is showing itself to be weak to dismiss this out of hand, for the PM acting like a president in dismissing it without any investigation beyond “I’ve spoken to him and I believe everything he says” and followed by senior ministers making media appearances telling us to “move on”. Even in this article we are being told the same. We are being told to move on because this saga has been damaging and embarrassing for the government more than anything else.
The contempt they have shown the electorate in general has been abhorrent, and trying to frame this around Brexit just shows the utter panic people involved are in.
Maybe I speak for myself, but if we had a Labour or Lib Dem government in place and the same events happened, my conclusion would be exactly the same. The rule makers have an obligation to uphold those rules. Even minor inflections will change perceptions and erode trust.
In terms of your final point. in terms of your misunderstanding of “might”. The reason for this is that the police don’t determine breaches; they form an opinion. If that opinion is disputed, a court will decide.
In this context, “might” means the police concluded it *was*. As they would have done in other cases if they were present, they would have advised him to return home immediately and if this was not followed then a fine would be issued. As they were not present they cannot fine him as it would not be consistent with their previous actions against individuals. So in this case the police have noted there was indeed a breach, and as that breach was a deliberate action by Mr Cummings, he did break lockdown rules knowingly.
If you still feel that the timing of this has anything to do with Brexit, I suggest that you question the timing of when the UK went into lockdown, the timing of their “illness”, the timing of the PM’s statement saying clearly that Mr Cummings didn’t break lockdown rules and the timing of his quite frankly extraordinary press conference in the rose garden of No10, which in itself has broken the code of conduct that people in his position need to follow.
Well said.
Well said RB I should have added.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for explaining your views and thoughts in detail. As a constituent I very much appreciate this.
It is clear, and has been for some time that, with Covid19, we are all in this together. Your own sad family news makes this clear, and that is the point that many many other people have stated above. We either all stand together and behave in the right way, and follow what Matt Hancock so explicitly call instructions, or we do not.
If we don’t more people die. If the example set by those at the heart of government is that these instructions do not need apply to them, then more people die. If the government then defends that excepionalism in contradiction to its own advice, then more people will die.
That’s all that needs to be said. Cummings ludicrous eye test excuses and web site editing, and his wife’s foolish Spectator article show them for the people they are, but these are side-shows to the main fact – we’re in this together or we’re not – and that’s why so many of us cannot move on.
When the State treats its’ citizens with contemp- as it seems to on increasingly many occasions, when punishments of ordinary, mainly law-abiding, people are so disproportionate to the crime- the rule of law breaks down ever so slightly. I fear this Cummings issue has caused a significant loss of respect for our governing classes & the rules they seek to impose on the rest of us. Facts & contrition at the outset would have saved much damage & vital time better-spent on vital issues. What errors of judgement by so many for the benefit of just one.
Dear Mr Scully thankyou for taking the time to give us your views. However you miss several fundamental points in coming to your conclusions. It is not “time to move on” as the result of moving on will only result in more people breaching guidance as they see that somebody in a position of power can get away with it so why can’t they. the end result of this will inevitably be greater pressure on our police force and potentially greater risk of more serious outbreaks and suffering. The point is not that Mr Cummings’ act in driving to Durham was just about within the minutiae of the fine print of the Government guidance, it is that it was in direct contravention of the “Stay home, save lives, protect the NHS message” and the more stringent “if you have COvid19 symptoms stay at home and self isolate for 14 days”. People in the public eye have to be seen to follow guidelines. Mr Cummings may be able to say truthfully that he never stopped on his journey to Durham but he cannot have been confident that that would have been the case on setting off so he was taking a significant risk of spreading infection at that time. His story that he drove a 60 miles round trip to “test his eyesight” which just happened to be to a local tourist spot is frankly ridiculous and in contravention of the road traffic act. Seeing Michael Gove attempt to defend this act when interviewed on the radio and on television was pathetic and an insult to our intelligence and an affront to the important office he holds. One point that appears to have been missed in the discussion is that having driven to Durham, Mr Cummings then decided to drive back to London in contravention of the “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives” guidelines at the time. Surely he should have remained in Durham and worked from home!! Unfortunately government ministers have spent far more energy and shown greater speed of response on protecting Mr Cummings than at any time in their handling of this unprecedented pandemic. The only way in which we can move on from this affair is for Mr Johnson to sack Mr Cummings or for Mr Cummings himself to do the honourable thing and acknowledge that his behaviour and actions, however well intentioned were a mistake and resign. I hope that having read the numerous replies to your misguided article you will reconsider, as your local colleague has, and join the increasing clamour for Mr Cummings to go.
I wonder if you read these comments at all or if you just ignore them like when they contact you via email.
The majority of your constituents are not satisfied with the government’s handling of this matter and as YOU WORK FOR US you should be representing us and not be making excuses for Mr Cummings.
Now that Durham Police have confirmed a breach of the lockdown rules by Mr Cumming I fully expect you to add your voice to the group of MPs who have already called for his resignation so that we can move on from this and focus on the matter at hand, namely the COVID 19 pandemic.
Or you can NOT listen to the people who you are supposed to represent and we will speak our thoughts at the ballot box when this sahmbles of a government topples.
The words “move on” in your title typifies the attitude responsible for the carnage we have had to suffer in this pandemic. Stick your head in the sand long enough and it will go away was the way your boss behaved when the WHO declared a world wide health emergency and he hasn’t changed his modus operandi one iota. When Mr. and Mrs. Cummings went off on their jaunt they were walking bio-hazards spreading this deadly virus wherever they went. Precisely the the sort of behaviour the regulations were designed to stop. They clearly do not give a monkeys for the health and safety of their fellow citizens and in going to extraordinary lengths to defend them neither does the Prime Minister. If you believe Mr. Cummings took his family to Barnards Castle on his wife’s 45th birthday because he was concerned over his eyesight you may be sincere, but sincere or not you are too stupid to be our MP.
I am very disappointed in your stance on this issue. Having seen details of your speeches and responces on other matters including withdrawal from the EU I had considered that you were an MP that your constituents could rely on to support them. However, your willingness to accept the ridiculous lies and excuses from Dominic Cummings undermines that belief. The PM telling us to move on confirms that he is unable to answer the many outstanding questions on this issue. Cummings has destroyed the credibility of the government’s strategy for dealing with the virus. Put your constituents before Dominic Cummings or suffer the consequences come election time.
Paul,
In my earlier email I asked you to support the Conservative MPs demanding the sacking of Cummings. This you clearly have not done. You also have not given satisfactory answers to the questions I asked you concerning the story that Cummings gave relating to his Durham trip. Therefore, I shall ask you a second time to answer the following questions:
1. Dominic Cummings and his wife, Mary Wakefield, have family in London. But he said that they explored no other options before settling on their trip to Durham. Why not?
2. Did Cummings consider whether there was any risk that his wife’s trip to hospital in Durham with the couple’s son could take Covid-19 on to the site? Did he consider whether the difficulty of getting an immediate taxi was sufficient reason for him to drive to the hospital when he could “barely stand up” the night before?
3. If Cummings had concerns over whether his eyesight was good enough to drive to London, why was he confident enough to drive 30 miles to Barnard Castle, with his wife and son in the vehicle?
4. The deputy chief medical officer for England, Jenny Harries, said that the only reason to travel with coronavirus in search of childcare was if there was an extreme risk to life. Did the family’s situation constitute such a risk?
5. Cummings said that the media had been told things were wrong but “repeatedly reported them anyway”. How does he reconcile this account with Downing Street’s refusal to engage with attempts by the Guardian and Daily Mirror to seek comment for more than six weeks? Why did Downing Street only issue comments after the publication of key articles by the two newspapers?
6. Cummings said that he took a walk in the second week of his stay in Durham “after I started to recover”. That would suggest he still had some symptoms. The Public Health England guidance on outdoor exercise changed that week and by 9 April all outdoor exercise was prohibited for those with symptoms. So when exactly did the walk take place?
Although I am very disappointed in your statement on Dominic Cummings, it is exactly along the lines of what I was expecting you to say.
Dear Mr Scully,
Please accept my condolences for your loss.
Having read through all the above comments it seems that there is only one person who supports your point of view but he does not address any of the issues. I was particularly impressed by the response of Tom, the lawyer who conclusively proved the Mr Cummings has broken the law. I find it difficult to understand why you see the situation so differently from everybody else and that this is your honest opinion. I urge you to reconsider your position.
Mr Scully, your response as many have echoed is very disappointing.
In fact it is not what I imagined at all. To me your response should have been to represent the views of constituents (supportive or otherwise) on an objective and apolitical basis.
You can of course take a view, but the important thing for me was for you to acknowledge strength of feeling and that your constituents are divided and agonised on this issue.
There is no doubt in my mind (and I believe the majority of right minded people) that there were many infractions of lockdown instructions by Mr Cummings. The fact is that most of us fully understood the rigorous nature the rules in force at the time and know we would have been in breach if we had chosen to behave in a similar way.
Mr Cummings argument over child care need or provision is not to put too fine a point on it, pathetic. It was clear that in his situation local services should have been made available and accessed where necessary – this is what everyone else was expected to do. Potentially dangerous travel was off limits and travel to a second home (whether or not personally owned) was expressly forbidden.
As a parent of a child who had extensive and genuine special needs I absolutely guarantee I would not have behaved in the same way.
I do respect the need of a parent to do whatever they feel they need to do – but don’t expect the right to keep your job as a result whatever you do!
I am disappointed in Boris Johnson too (I had high hopes for him).
He has seriously misjudged the public mood with potentially serious consequences for the wider population. I think perhaps adding ‘delusion’ to the after effects of Covid-19 could well be a conclusion?
If it had been anyone else but ‘his friend’ (Cummings) we all know they would have been sacked within hours.
I do not find your assessment balanced or well considered.
I did not hold any grudge or animosity towards Mr Cummings and waited for him to give his own version of events. In fact I still don’t. From my point of view at least it is not a witch hunt. I am mystified as to why you can’t see through the flimsy blandishments he presented by way of justification.
I am afraid we can no longer support you with our three loyal Conservative votes if you stand for re-election. My advice to you is to stand aside and give way to someone with better instincts when the time comes.
I feel you, Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings have collectively betrayed our trust.
It may be a small moment in political time, but is a big mistake that won’t be forgotten by many people for a very long time.
Dear Mr Scully I wish to ask your advice.I am not certain as to whether my vision is as required by law when driving so I am contemplating driving 30 miles from Sutton and having a walk with my family.Should I go?
If you are are unable to help me could you please ask the Prime minister?
I have emailed you directly with this question but as it might help others I wonder if you could answer here please.
I am not sure my eyesight is up to its best at the moment, due to heyfever. I am planning on testing my eyesight with a 60 mile drive over the weekend. Or is there another way I could check this ?
I feel really stupid at the moment because I thought that what Mr Cummings did was wrong on all levels and utterly indefensible too but if you say it’s ok then I must be really stupid, hence your advice on my eyesight predicament would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks in advance.
Paul,
Why can you not see the obvious? Why can you not see the glaring discrepancies in Mr Cummings’ statement which have been clearly pointed out by your constituents above?
Having received such an overwhelming response don’t you think it is time you for you to think again? I can only assume that all the responsibilities which you mentioned that go with your job have in some way weighed you down and affected your judgement.
The Government’s response is quite appalling though not surprising. The tried and tested methods of deception are in evidence i.e. concoct story to fit the known facts, try to change the topic and suggest “move on”, hold the line and in a week the story will go away.
I think not this time Paul. EVERYONE I know from all political persuasions are of the same opinion: Cummings was wrong in what he did, his statement was concocted to fit the fact that he had been spotted in Barnards Castle, Boris has made a catastrophic misjudgement in trying to justify Cummings’ actions,and, his closest ministers, including you, have made the same misjudgement, although I suspect you all did so to be seen to be backing Boris – or were told that that was the line you must take, and it will all go away soon.
As a previous writer mentioned, you were elected to represent the constituents of Sutton and Cheam. The responses you have received tell you clearly what our thoughts and feelings are. Do your job, represent us, and advise Boris accordingly.
Arrogance is not pleasant.
The existence of Covid 19 is not the Government’s responsibility: formulation of combat strategy, provision of material protection, clear communication, securing and maintaining the trust of ‘the people’, so often invoked by PM, are. The tragic, horrendous death toll and continuing high infection rate are evidence of success so far. As we ‘move on’ into the very dangerous relaxation of restrictions period when complacency can creep in, vigilance is vital, not dispensation for special people. All over the country, people in desperate situations have valiantly struggled, understanding that only common effort will achieve our common good and safety. Whose ends are served by whitewashing the PM’s maverick aide?
Well Mr Scully, it certainly appears from these comments the people of Sutton have seen through the lies of the conservative party leadership and certainly feel you have somewhat missed the entire point of why people are upset.
People of Sutton please acknowledge Mr Scully is an extremely out of touch Tory yes and at the next election vote him out!!
Dear Paul,
Sorry for your personal loss.please except my sincere condolences.
Over the years I have written to you on many issues, some, if not all,more important then Mr Cummings,breaking the rules on lockdown the great majority of my letters which I considered not only important to myself and the wider community you have ignored or replayed months later.
So can I ask why such a prompt response you realy have pulled out all the stops on this one and such an effort I lost count of the number of “summersaults” you turned in your very lengthy defence of this person that you have only ever met once ! so well done you realy have convinced yourself that Mr Cummings is above the law.
But he is not, your constituents know that, so do I.
Mr Scully
Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed account of your position on this matter.
I appreciate that you find the amount of energy being exerted on this matter to be frustrating and you want to move on to other more pressing matters. But what I fear you don’t get is that there can be no moving on. The public’s trust in your government and public health messaging has been shattered. We are by no means out of the woods with this pandemic. If the next phase of track and trace is to work, which is essential if we want to return to any level of normality and economic recovery, the trust and consent of the public is vital.
Whether you like it or not, there is only one way to draw a line under this matter, and that is for Dominic Cummings to go.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for replying to my email of 26th May 2020.
Frankly, I’m horrified by your response. For the benefit of readers to this article I will now copy my initial letter to you, which was backed up by a response on here, and I will also put your response below. It will now be up to your readers on here to decide whether they feel your response is appropriate or adequate:
Tuesday 26 May 2020
Dear Paul Scully,
I’m writing to you, as one of your constituents, to voice my concern
about the conduct of the Chief Advisor to the Prime Minister, Mr
Dominic Cummings.
As details of the story broke of his breaking or loose interpretation
of lockdown rules, I have followed the details with interest, including
the reports given by the Daily Mirror, the members of Government who
have come out to support him and his press conference yesterday.
The account that has been given yesterday by Mr Cummings, which
contains many inaccuracies and very odd details which do not match up
other information, I found to be contemptuous to the voting public. The
main issue I have was the point where Mr Cummings claimed to have made
a 60 mile round trip to test his eyesight. As someone who works in the
optical sector and whose role it is to help support that sector, I find
it totally abhorrent that this course of action could have taken place,
and the advisor by doing this put his own family, himself and potential
innocent bystanders and risk. Optical practices have been open
throughout this pandemic for essential and emergency appointments and
there is no excuse for Mr Cummings not to have sought the help of of
the 17,000+ professionals in the United Kingdom for an appropriate view
and an examination. The advice I expect would be given would be not to
take any risks in driving if one feels they are not safe to do so. By
making this statement he has undermined a valuable and essential part
of the health sector, which I feel has been done irresponsibly and
would be considered to have broken the law under MS70 (Driving with
uncorrected defective eyesight) as a minimum, but could have been so
much worse.
As your constituent, I would like it placed on record that his actions
and behaviour falls well below the standard which is acceptable for
someone in his position, and I would like to have it on record that I
am requesting that you, as my MP, ask the Prime Minister for his
dismissal. In any other professional setting, any like employee would
have committed gross misconduct, and I believe Mr Cummings shouldn’t be
treated any differently. The same of course should also apply for his
disregard of lockdown rules, where other individuals have been fined or
prosecuted for acting in a similar way to Mr Cummings.
I look forward to your acknowledgement and response on this matter
Yours sincerely,
Andreas Kyriakides
Your unedited response follows below:
Good afternoon
Thank you for taking the time to contact me and for your sacrifices during this extraordinarily difficult period.
Below is a link to an article that I have written regarding Dominic Cummings. I entirely understand that you may not agree with me and may be disappointed in my position but I hope at least that you will read the article where I have set out in full my thoughts and genuinely held beliefs.
https://t.co/3XibGy8pb8?amp=1
Best wishes
Paul
Paul Scully MP
My obvious conclusion on this response is that you frankly had not read the email and instructed your office to send out a generic response pointing me to an article that I had already read. Whilst I understand you are obviously busy, to rush out an “automated” response like this is totally contemptuous. Your article doesn’t address any of the issues I have put it, it seems very unlikely that you read it (it certainly lacks evidence that you did) and I have the feeling that my MP, someone who has been elected to represent the people of Sutton and Cheam regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum, which based on the evidence presented to us so far is not the case.
I am open and welcome to give you the opportunity for a more appropriate response on here if you so wish, or by email or telephone if you prefer, but I would be obliged if you would, and after that point I will also happily acknowledge in public that you have.
Yours sincerely
Andreas Kyriakides
I think this episode offends the innate decency and sense of fairness that people in this country cherish. One questions the judgement of a PM, a cabinet and, in our case, a local MP who seem willing to diminish themselves by getting on the wrong side of that.
But I do have every sympathy for Paul and his family on their bereavement, as I do for everyone else who has lost loved ones.
Well done, Paul, for NOT joining in the witch-hunt against Dominic Cummings! I am sure Boris is busy at present, and does not need the extra task of having to find a new advisor!
Indeed Richard, witch hunt it is. Of course it will be denied furiously as we shall see from comments to follow and possibly many will be from the same person at Lib Dem HQ with a changed name.
I do not find your article at all persuasive or even particularly coherent. You should be aware that choosing to defend the so clearly indefensible makes you appear insincere and cynical and does a huge disservice to the country in these terrible times. I very much hope you will reply to me personally addressing the points I made in my email to you.
Oh, I see from reading these comments that the reply you sent to my letter was a standard form. Here is the reply I’ve sent to you:
Dear Mr Scully
Thank you for your reply and my condolences on the loss of your mother.
I have read your article carefully and appreciate that you have set out your genuinely held beliefs in your own words.
My husband is on the very vulnerable list as he has recently completed chemotherapy for a blood cancer, so I have to disagree with you that raking over the details won’t save lives. My husband’s life, and the lives of many thousands like him, is dependent on the government issuing clear and detailed instructions about what behaviour is expected of us as a population to keep the spread of the virus under control and to prevent a second peak which overwhelms the NHS. Any lack of clarity will impact adherence to the rules, and that will have a direct impact on lives.
The original message from the government was a model of clarity, which I congratulate you for, and people obeyed it.
However, I am very much afraid that Mr Cummings’s actions, and the Prime Minister’s defence of them, have muddied the waters hopelessly and that is why I think that at the very least an apology should be forthcoming. It really doesn’t seem like much to ask for when peoples’ lives are at stake.
Apologise for what? Well, because it cannot, surely, be the case that at the time of his trip to Durham, it was permitted for a parent to follow their instincts instead of government instructions. And I hope very much that someone will clarify that it is not the case now.
Furthermore, it is risible to suggest that it is right and proper that someone should undertake a sixty-mile round trip to check if their eyesight is damaged, and I am very sorry you have been put in the position of having to defend such dangerous behaviour.
I can see from the comments below your article that I am not alone in this point of view. Statutory Instrument 2020 no 350 clause 6 is very clear as to what behaviour is permissible and what is not. Mr Cummings has made a mistake. If the Prime Minister can’t manage government business without him, please, at least ask him to apologise and to be absolutely clear about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. People make mistakes, we all understand that. What we don’t understand is the lack of regret and the insistence that the rules are different for the Prime Minsters’s friends.
Yours sincerely
So, there we have it. One law for the tories and one for the plebs.
How you can write reams of spiel and end up defending him is beyond me.
Very disappointed in your view and your PM as I am now sure an increasing number of people will be.
Dear Mr Scully,
Thank you for replying to my emails about the Dominic Cummings debacle, especially at a time when you have recently lost a close family member. I am not going to express disappointment at your response as I half anticipated a party-line response.
At a time of national crisis, it is hard to imagine a more amateurish management by government of a breach of the national guidelines by an unelected but highly influential bureaucrat working at Downing Street. Driving your family to Durham was stretching the guidelines to breaking point. Driving to Barnard Castle, excused by Mr Cummings on the pretence as testing out his eyesight, is obviously a breach of the guidelines in any common sense way and was definitely not, as you state, for the good of his child. The letter my household received from Boris Johnson said unequivocally to stay at home!
Of course, you want to move on to avoid the squirming embarrassment this issue reveals about your Prime Minister’s judgement and the coordinated attempt to starve this issue to death. Have you asked yourself why the Prime Minister is so attached, dependent or afraid of Mr Cummings? Your neighbour, Mr Coburn of the Wallington constituency, has taken a different view which I respect as he has made an independent decision. He has not fallen into the easy trap, which I sometimes think you do, of obsequiously following No 10’s prepared script. Our constituency would benefit from a brave strong and independently-minded representative.
The purpose of reflection is to learn and change. I see little evidence of learning or much honesty in your response. Your constituents on the other hand have learned a lot about you and your capacity for pulling us together as one nation. Old habits die hard.
Reading all the replies so far, I can only see very very few people in support of Mr Scully’s views. I’m glad to know that I live in an area where the majority of the people has a reliable moral compass. It is disappointing that our MP seems to exhibit such poor judgement.
Dear Mr Scully
Further to the comments already made on this thread, which I am in total agreement with, and my emails to you asking that you make the prime minister aware of your constituents’ feelings’ with regards to Mr Cummings conduct. Could you confirm that you will be feeding our strongly held views on the matter back to the prime minister please, and if not why not?
Kind regards
Nikki
Dear Mr Scully
I can’t possibly believe that after reviewing the facts and evidence available that anyone, of any political party/persuasion, can come to any other conclusion other than Mr Cummings clearly broke the very clear rules set out, by his own government, that were in place at the time of his trip; undermining the attempt to save lives across the four nations. This is absolutely crystal clear and I can see no grey area or room for interpretation. There have been a lot of ‘well I can see why people are angry, but I disagree’ style statements being made, but this case is very simple, his actions were either right or wrong – and they were wrong. Further to this, both he and his partner have very clearly given contradictory and false accounts prior to his statement in the Rose Garden (which in turn included some extremely worrying admissions), in an attempt to retrospectively adjust/alter/distort what actually did happen. How can you support someone who is untrustworthy? Trust, a value which at any time but especially now is vital in any form of administration.
Anyone who admits that they drove a car to test their eyesight was putting other road users lives in danger. Anyone who has/or suspects they have a very serious illness that is highly infectious should not enclose themselves in a small space with their child for five hours! Someone with such little common sense and intelligence should not have a critical position at the heart of government as it gives little confidence or hope that the government is competent.
You say it is time to move on and get on with the Covid-19 efforts – well, the simplest way to do that is sack Mr Cummings and move on.
Andrew
There seems to be a pattern emerging within the tory party. The MP’s calling for Cummings head, which sadly don’t include our own, seem to be those “newbies” especially from Northern constituencies concerned about their own wafer thin majorities and their fragile seats. Those appearing to back Cummings seem to be more concerned about upsetting Johnson and clinging on to their ministerial salaries.
I repeat again – one rule for the tories and another one for the so-called plebs.
You would expect more from your elected representative.
Dear Mr Scully, Thank you for this link sent via email. You are right. I disagree with some of your points. Cummings went against government advice at that time by visiting a small market town.
It is never safe to test one’s eyesight by driving their family. I am glad they survived the test and didn’t kill anyone other drivers or pedestrians in the process. It’s been a testing time for all of us.
Michelle
I am curious as to if you still deem Mr. Cummings actions as fair and reasonable given that Durham Police force have stated a position in complete contradiction to your own? Do they happen to be a part of this so called media witch hunt you seem keen to try and deflect to (not relevant to this point but it really does concern me that you have such an objection to journalist holding elected officials (and others paid from the public purse) to account). This sort of attitude leads to a very dark place for countries.
Back to the purpose of the original communication – so it’s not just constituents, a significant proportion of the media (including a number of right wing commentators and even the Daily Mail), a large number of MPs from your own party (those with a backbone) and even the scientific advisers to the government also have also formulated conclusions that contradict your own. But then again of course these can be reasonably judged again the word of Mr. Cummings and the PM’s (who is a proven liar on multiple occasions) taking of this explanation at face value without critique.
This would not have been the story it has become if the government would actually take ownership for its actions. There was a lot of frustration already building up with the abject management of this crisis and gall of the government to sit that and attempt to tell us how other countries were looking up to how we are handling this crisis – the only thing they are looking up to is the death count). There are multiple other examples within this such as counting individual gloves at single items of PPE, counted posted tests as completed tests, counting oral/nasal tests as 2 tests in the count, conveniently removing the by country comparisons the moment we became the worst in Europe) the laughable “protective ring” comment around care homes and the one the frustrated me the most personally – the downgrading of severity of Covid classification that reduced the PPE requirement for medical staff because we did not have the required PPE!
So, when we then see an act of clear hypocrisy – we think to ourselves maybe this will finally be the time we get some contrition and honesty from the government – but alas no – we got further into the rabbit hole of this government treating each and every citizen as mugs. At this point when attempting the defend the absolute indefensible that people have snapped – it was the straw that broke the camels back of all of the clear attempts to mislead, the lack of contrition and the abject failures that have contributed to excess deaths and a longer route out of lockdown.
I will be honest I had an extremely low opinion of you as our elected representative as it was, I have always thought that you were the good little lapdog then when head office said jump you go how high without any critical review of what you are being asked to do. In fact I cannot recall (and maybe I am mistaken in this) a single occasion where you have publicly disagreed with “head office” on any matter?
I only hope for your sake that your blind loyalty is rewarded otherwise the significant loss of credibility will have been for nothing. The support in this matter only reinforces that it is your opinion that all of the above are both acceptable actions and an appropriate way to treat the wider electorate and your own constituents.
I will not reiterate all the comments made by the majority of others. Suffice to say I agree with them rather than you. You are an elected representative of your constituents and, as such, should represent the vast majority opinion of us. Do you think you are better than us? Do you think you see the situation from a more informed position? The strength of feeling on this matter is so extreme for a reason. We have ALL seen/read/disseminated Cummings’ and Johnsons’ comments about this. We are “all in this together” we are told. We are all entitled to believe what we believe from the information given. The VAST majority do not agree with you. Represent your constituents. It is what you are paid to do.
I am hugely disappointed in your lengthy but generic reply. I consider it very insulting to suggest that either Brexit matters or a lengthy press witch-hunt have had anything to with my contacting you. I have reread your blog and read every single comment by your constituents and am angered by your reluctance to admit the abundantly clear fact that in supporting Dominic Cumming’s explanations for his actions you have made a serious error of judgment. to suggest otherwise beggars belief. I call again for you to reconsider your response and to call for the resignation of Dominic Cummings.
I respect that you seem to have written much of this message yourself. It is rare in this age of political dissemination so plaudits for that.
I understand your opening paragraph works to humanise you and indeed, I am sorry to hear that you have had bereavement in your family but appealing to your personal tragedy while discussing the matter of an unelected advisor’s conduct seems pretty churlish. This was perhaps not your intention but mentioning these things seems misplaced. It is either an innocent error or intentionally manipulative and you should consider excising that whole paragraph from your statement.
“But on the whole people across the UK have stuck to the core message of staying home to protect the NHS and save lives. Although this is the core message, clearly it isn’t the complete message which included people being able to travel to work if their business wasn’t required to work and they could not work from home.”
I am not sure how this relates to Mr Cummings given that he was not running a business or unable to work from home. It seems like you are trying to give these two separate issues some form of equivalence when they are unrelated.
“It doesn’t cover the guidelines which included such variations as children who lived across two homes in shared custody and it certainly doesn’t cover the endless possibilities that no set of reasonable guidelines could cover at all, let alone in absolute detail.”
Would your government perhaps put robust guidance in place as to how children living across two homes in shared custody should be covered? If that is the issue then the solution to this problem needs to be outlined. Also, this does not seem to be an unforeseen possibility, it is not an uncommon living situation and if it is something where the government is going to allow flexibility in the system of lockdown then this needs much more clarity.
“That is one of the reasons that as we look to move to the next stage, the prescriptive sounding ‘Stay at Home, Save Lives,’ has been replaced with a common-sense catch-all of ‘Stay Alert, Save Lives’, giving implicit permission for people to use their own judgement which has largely been the case to date anyway.”
I can only assume that no attention has been paid to both the media, social or otherwise and the general public’s feelings on this change of instruction in that many are confused about what “Stay Alert” means. I certainly do not know how to apply it to my life past feeling a sense of anxiety about pretty much everything.
“I believe that he answered the central point that he acted within the guidance allowing for his family’s exceptional circumstances.”
Exceptional definition: Being an exception; uncommon. In what way is Mr Cumming’s circumstances exceptional? This situation, with us all stuck at home in a myriad of problematic situations, trapped in a single home that is miles from our family or beauty spots is very much not an exception. Please explain in further detail how one is using the word exceptional in this sentence.
One can argue about the exact letter of the law and guidance but using the language of law to weasel out of sticky political situations is poor form. Representative law that can be applied to every layer of society is one of the few things that glues society together, that I can sue where I have been wronged and that the state can, after a jury of peers makes a decision, incarcerate people convicted of breaking laws is one of the most fundamental and important rights within Western democracy, that this government would chip away at that to serve its own interests is dangerous and unwise.
If it is indeed true that concentrating on the job at hand is the priority then sacking Cummings, putting all this behind us and getting on with managing the difficulty of the crisis would seem the obvious solution. Instead we have had ministers spending inordinate amounts of time justifying an unjustifiable position.
The line of argumentation around Brexit that you use is pernicious, the appeal to tribalism is transparent and very damaging, especially at this time when unity should be the overriding message. The idea that people are just angry about Brexit at a time when we are facing the most serious global crisis of my lifetime is incredibly reductive, falsely placatory and plain wrong. Most people’s lives have been irrevocably changed and Brexit is of least concern to most of us who have to work out what job we are going to have in a month’s time.
“Raking over every minor detail won’t save a life, protect a job, or improve a single child’s education. Drilling into the detail of the bladder capacity of his child is just not a world I want to be part of.”
Oh please, the primary reason the story is being raked over is that it does not make any sense and is internally contradictory, the government and Mr Cumming’s behaviour has been confusing and opaque to, in my opinion, cover for a non-justifiable position. You talk in this message about unity, coming together and other platitudes but to evidence your belief in your message then you can need only look at the mood of your constituency and see how we are coming together and unifying to ask you to show some civic responsibility and ask for Mr Cumming’s removal from office.
There quite clearly are different rules for those in power. Please go into details citing evidence for how you can consider this to be true. Explain how members of the public getting fined for travelling around is the same as Mr Cummings who has in no way been formally reprimanded.
I feel this is a good time to reiterate, the simplest solution to getting past this problem is to respect the mood of your constituency and the public at large and sack Mr Cumming’s.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your reply and your explanation in this blog post. I am sorry to hear of your bereavement. It is heartbreaking to know that you’ve been through a tough time like the rest of us.
However, on the Cummings matter, I get a feeling that you are more focussed on toeing the party line of forgiving Cummings and moving on. I am utterly disappointed that you don’t seem to find anything wrong in Cummings’ action. He was not one bit apologetic and it is clear that the Tory leadership is now arrogant enough to not care about what people think, particularly anything other than Brexit. This reminds me of Tony Blair’s Iraq war approach. Boris defending Cummings makes it clear that it is one rule for the elites and one for the rest of us.
I accept your denial of a personal equation with Cummings but I simply find it hard to accept your explanation of ‘leftist point scoring’ and ‘let’s move on’ . Rules were broken. Sacrifices that the rest of the country made were made to seem worthless. No apology from Cummings and he gets blind support from Boris.
I am sure many people will forget this episode in a few weeks but rest assured, many people will not forget Boris’s ‘one rule for the elite and one rule for the rest of the country’ approach.
Dear Mr Scully,
Thank you for your reply. As a constituent I cannot see how you are representing the vast number of responders to your reply about Dominic Cummings. This is not about politics. It is about the moral authority of the government who on the one hand ask us all to stick to the rules and then defend a very public show of disobedience. How can his actions be described as moral , legal and showing integrity as said by Boris Johnstone?
Can we all interpret track and trace, which could become mandatory, in the same way?
I hope you do pass on the strength of feeling of your constituents as you are not intending to show action yourself.
Dear Mr Scully
I am sorry for your loss and the sacrifices that you yourself have made.
However, after having contacted you directly and having now read your statement, I feel that my key points remain:
– The rules DO NOT make clear that Dominic Cummings’ situation was an exceptional circumstances, as I am sure you would have discovered if you canvased your constituents
– If we all followed instinct instead of rules, I am sure that the government would need to invest significantly more resource into law enforcement
– As a senior, and clearly indispensable, advisor to the PM and strategist, did Dominic Cummings not put in place a contingency plan in the event that he and / or his wife became ill during a global pandemic given their apparently specific childcare needs?
– By his own admission during his press conference, Dominic Cummings makes multiple decisions daily about what to share or not with the PM, given how valuable the PMs time is. This indicates that each decision he makes is done so deliberately. Yet Dominic Cummings did not tell the PM, nor Dominic Raab, that he may be out of action with the virus and was headed outside of London. Even by text message?
– Ignoring for now the rest of the inconsistencies and additional questions I have, some of which have already been raised here by other constituents, the fundamental concern here is that Dominic Cummings & Boris Johnson are following a ‘Do as I Say, not as I Do’ philosophy and their disconnection from the privations being suffered by all.
Dominic Cummings’ re-interpretation of the national guidance, issued to keep us safe, is confusing. It feels to me as if he and the PM are the only ones who realised that individuals with specific requirements, eg parents, could act on [selfish] instinct rather than thinking of the greater good before acting.
I am so disappointed. Platitudes and a defence of the indefensible will not cut it here, nor will repeated calls to ‘move on’ and placing easy blame solely on the media for the Government’s own shortcomings in its response to this pandemic rather than looking inwards.
Dominic Cummings does not have constituents, but you do and as I see from comments above, you acknowledge that you may well disagree with the majority of your constituents on this whole matter, but that you are not going to change your opinion.
I had thought that you have our best interests in mind in the work that you do for the London Borough of Sutton and that this would be reflected in your response to this situation. Clearly my faith here has been misplaced.
All of you in Westminster are accountable to us.
Yours sincerely
Miranda
If Dominic Cummings had been stopped by the police during his trip to Barnard Castle, would he have said he was “testing his eyesight”? If yes, he should lose points on his driving licence, if not, and the truth was that he was taking his wife and child on a birthday treat to a beauty spot, then he’s broken the lockdown rules an lied to the nation.
Whichever way, anyone who defends him and says he behaved responsibly or with integrity is insulting the millions of people who adhere to the rules, were they Highway Code or lockdown. Cummings need to go and those who defended him must apologise to the country.
This is not a question of politics, this is a question of respect.
Sir,
I advise you and your colleagues to view the recent edition of Have I got news for you as I believe that Ian Hislop reflects the views of the nation.
I write this as comment number 138 – my first was number 27. Nothing has changed, except that 136 of your constituents have taken the trouble to write to you, and over 100 of your parliamentary colleagues have expressed their disgust at the manner in which the PM’s senior advisor has not only acted, but the way he has responded to criticism. Your response has been no more that a standard note, showing equal contempt for those who care, and have been acting on government advice for the last ten weeks. A week later, there is now sufficient evidence, and unsupported denials, at large for you to sit down and reconsider your initial findings and ultimate conclusion in a rational manner, giving each item of “evidence” your due consideration, and ignoring any outside influences concerning your ministerial position and/or promotion prospects.
My apologies for not advising you and your colleagues to view the recent edition of THE LAST LEG which perfectly reflects the views of many.
Is there a fear that Mr Cummings and his journalist wife may spill the beans on other issues?
May I also ask you to use whatever influence you have to request that the report relating to the financing and major influences on both the Brexit and General Election is released asap?
Yours
Peter D Hogg
Dear Mr Scully,
Thank you for setting out your opinion so clearly, i.e. that you considerer that Mr Cummings “exercised his judgement within reason” and should stay. I would agree with your view that the government needs to concentrate on the job in hand but it is evident from the daily press briefings, if nothing else, that Mr. Cummings has become a big distraction and undermines government credibility.
I don’t doubt that for those in power there is a huge cost on family life and relentless daily pressure and I have sympathy for those making decisions when under pressure but both Mr Cummings and the PM had time to reflect before the No.10 rose garden press briefing and decide on what was the best way to move on. An early apology may have diffused the situation but the PM and others have given no indication that they think that an apology is necessary.
Advisers can of course be easily dispensed with even if it is considered that they have exercised good judgement and done no wrong as is evident from the former chancellor being asked by no.10 to fire his aides. But the decision appears to have been made to keep Mr Cummings in his current position whatever the cost. Do you consider that cost to be worthwhile?
Dear Mr Scully,
Thanks for your response. Please accept my condolences for your family losses.
Hugely disappointing you have chosen to write sentiments such as: “believe that we are now at the time to move on to the things that will affect people way after he is a footnote in political memoirs. His approach to government gives us a chance to build an approach that is often pushed by those sick of the normal state of affairs.” This is party political nonsense.
I feel no need to say more and reiterate the very clearly laid arguments here regarding why Mr Cummings be sacked. I still feel that to be the case and feel that history will judge this situation and who was on the right side in terms of protecting the health of the British public. I will not be voting for you nor will I ever vote Tory again in my life.
Regards,
Carol King
Dear Paul,
May I first start by thanking you for the reply to my email and adding my sincere condolences to the others.
This is all about how politics became personal: we were all asked to do our duty to save lives by limiting all our normal, natural activities.
Simple messages were expected to be interpreted simply. Dominic Cummings had a home and and he had, like all the rest of us, to stay there.
The anger arises from the complete lack of repentance over his breaches of that simple instruction. His excuses mock those (ie almost all of us) who genuinely put their public duty above their personal needs.
Perhaps he need not care what the country thinks of him, as he is not elected by them. However his dreadful and unrepentant behavior will cast a very long shadow over the Conservative party if he is not removed from his employment by them.
I am sorry when some constituents resort to personal insults. You are doing a job like the rest of us, and a very difficult one too.
Thanks
Caroline
Dear Fellow Constituents,
What can I do if I have written to Mr Scully and have either received no response on this matter, or am unhappy with his response?
Hi Beth. I got just a stock response directing me to this post which I’d already read. I suspect Mr Scully has had a lot of correspondence on this issue. If you haven’t received a response within a suitable time frame, contact him again referencing your previous contact. If you receive a response along the lines of “I know you may not agree with me, but…”, feel free to write back and follow this up.
Hi everyone. Just in case any of you feel responding to a blog post isn’t a sufficient to express your feelings to our MP, you may want to email him directly at paul.scully.mp@parliament.uk. If like me, he just redirects you to this blog post, you may want to follow with further correspondence.
Dear Mr Scully,
Thank you for responding to my email and pointing me towards this blog post. You’re right that I do not agree with your stance on this issue. I along with many others believe you have got the mood of the public wrong.
Mr Cummings has been caught, at the very least, of breaking the spirit of the guidance if not the terms itself. I can accept the need to ensure his family were cared for, but not how he could have thought what he was doing was OK. Putting aside the 230 mile drive to Durham, driving to test his eyesight is both unlawful and downright dangerous.
Furthermore, the almost blind acceptance of Mr Cumming’s actions by the Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet, shows a woeful lack of appreciation for what a lot of people throughout the country have had to stomach in similar situations. Is this because the real power of this Government is in the hands of an unelected official?
There’s a lot of anger and frustration in the Sutton and Cheam constituency (and elsewhere) that this episode has shown the Conservatives in a very poor light. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Mr Cummings for a second, it shows a lack of leadership at the very top of this Government. By not even willing to accept that there may be a case to answer for, the party has put itself in a position contrary to the Durham police force.
I appreciate you may not be willing to change your position, but at the very least let the Prime Minister the depth of feeling of your constituents. One look at the comments on your blog post should tell you everything you need to know.
I am delighted to see the strength of feeling from fellow Sutton residents.
As disappointed as I’ve been over the past decade to see a Tory both get elected and then retain Sutton, I hope this marks a turning point and that we won’t simply forgive and forget what Scully has done come 2024 (assuming that’s the next opportunity to vote him out).
As I wrote to Paul directly a couple of months ago, the Tories have played fast and loose with our jobs, welfare, and now lives, for far too long. Enough is enough and I want these people out.
The only unfortunate thing is we have to wait a good few years, during which they will wreak untold havoc.
Evidently I am out of step with the majority of replies.
I have not read them all but wonder how many would have been that rigid where children are involved. Dominic Cummings took 14 days or so away from Downing Street. Do those that have commented honestly think that at this time he would take a short break away from the front line unless the matter was serious?
Will they now shop their friends? Or is everybody squeaky clean? Remember only shop those who you know had no excuse at all
Judge not etc
Although I am sorry for your beraevements I fear I side with the vast majority of respondents to your blog. As I said in my e-mail to you, as a vulnerable pensioner who has been carefully following all the lockdown rules I am much concerned that Dominic Cummings failure to comply with the spirit and the letter of the rules will give the wrong message to many people that might place me at risk.
The Prime Minister, in his usual bluster and obfuscation, and supine cabinet ministers have made matters worse. They are not providing leadership in trying to stifle debate and ignoring the issue in a panic to ‘move on’. This has led to an earlier end to some lockdown measures against the advice of many experts. So the next couple of weeks whilst the risk of a rising R number is high we will be faced without a proven test and trace system in place.
I fear for our country and its economy that later this year may driven over the cliff edge by the lie encrusted Brexit bus of Dom and Bojo.
The fact is that politicians should seek to tell the truth, admitting human mistakes and errors (not least of years of austerity and privatisation of NHS facilities that left us unprepared for the pandemic).
This does not mean misusing statistics – the complaints today (2 June) are of a piece that goes back to the Brexit Debate – where are the billions that leaving the EU that would fund the NHS. Many lies were told then and much massaging of the truth is going on now when the true number of deaths is 60,000.
I left it a few days before employing the link I was sent. I found myself increasingly astounded as I went through it, and I am not referring to the occasional grammatical and other errors. I am astounded that my MP could expect me to believe that he sincerely holds these beliefs. I am insulted to be expected to believe that these are privately held views and not just government clap-trap and justification.
I am not a Tory and I will never vote Tory but this is far from being a political issue. On Sunday I read an article by Peter Bone (Con., Wellingborough) in – of all papers – The Observer in which he, an ardent hard brexiter, states that the call for Cummings to resign is not ‘..’a Remainer conspiracy, … a leftwing campaign to destabilise the government or … a coded attack on Boris Johnson’. The issue is that this man, obviously in a position of great influence despite never have been elected, broke the rules that we are all expected to follow. Then it was magnified by an absurd justification for a day out which can only mean that he broke the law by driving with suspected poor eyesight or that he thought that he could say anything and get away with it.
Mr Scully, I am very disappointed that you either do not recognise this situation for what it is, a matter of honour and decency and respect for the law, or do not have the nous to realise that your constituents will not be fobbed off with the government line. Be like Peter Bone and be honest.
Dear Mr Scully I am sorry for the losses in your family but I remain totally unconvinced by your reply and by Mr Cummings’ story which he had many weeks to create. I don’t think many people would think it appropriate to do what he did and the fact that we are being expected to believe that a man on whom the PM relies, would be stupid enough to test his eye sight by taking his family on a 60 mile drive, just shows we are being taken for fools. It comes as no surprise that many people no longer bother to follow the rules on social distancing. I refer of course to the mass invasion of beaches and the shameful race riots that have just taken place. I await the next spike in the virus as a result.
I still have not had a reply to my email on this subject
You will be famous, rich, and posses power…Join the Illuminati Freemason Brotherhood!!!Email ((illuminatisecretetemple666 @)) yahoo. com,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,