Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that Dominic Cummings DID break the rules?

314 replies

LumaLou · 23/05/2020 13:41

The day after reportedly developing coronavirus symptoms, Dominic Cummings and his family travelled 200 miles to self isolate.

While I can understand the desire to be near family, AIBU to think they should have isolated at home?

Many families in the UK have faced situations where sticking to the rules has at best inconvenient, at worst traumatic. They have managed to do so with less of a support network and less resources at their disposal than the Cummings family.

OP posts:
HalleLouja · 23/05/2020 18:12

I did feel like Shapps was made to follow the party line through gritted teeth. DC won’t go or if he does he will just be doing the same role unofficially. One rule for us....

winniesanderson · 23/05/2020 18:13

I don't understand how at the time it was a potential safeguarding issue.
I'm hoping at least one of the parents were in a state well enough to care for a child seeing as they were able to drive such a distance. And I guess pack, feed and entertain said child during the journey, fuel/refuel etc. I've been a single parent horrendously ill and basically parenting from the sofa. It's not great but at preschool/reception age it's hardly the end of the world for a few days. It would be horrendously bad luck if both parents were desperately ill at the same time. Not impossible I suppose but unlikely.

HelloMissus · 23/05/2020 18:18

No no no he didn’t break the rules.
There are exceptions if you love your children and you have the virus.
And any way they aren’t rules. Except when the police fine you and then there are definitely rules.
Or something.

Experimenopause · 23/05/2020 18:20

HelloMissus
Grin

HalleLouja · 23/05/2020 18:21

Sorry HelloMissus no rules were broken. I was wrong. 😂😂😂

LumaLou · 23/05/2020 18:23

95% YANBU so far. Never in my life have I felt so gaslighted by the government.

I’m interested in the reasonings behind the YABU votes. Risk to life?

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 23/05/2020 18:25

They've admitted that there is a real problem in 'encouraging' people back to work.

I think they've leaked this now to encourage people to forget about the scrtict guidelines.

Everyone will be going "Sod this, if Cummings doesn't have to follow the rules neither do I."

Job done.

jellyfrizz · 23/05/2020 18:25

*strict

LumaLou · 23/05/2020 18:28

@jellyfrizz

Interesting....

So we can now put ourselves at risk, as there never were any rules?

OP posts:
jewel1968 · 23/05/2020 18:31

I have been in a situation where both of us parents were extraordinarily sick. We had a young child (1.5years) at the time. I had perforated eardrum with bleeding from ear and have never been so sick and DP was coughing blood. All from a viral infection.

Like poster says we parented from sofa. No way we could drive hundreds of miles to avail of support. If well enough to drive surely well enough to parent from sofa?

PissOffStayAtHomeDogMum · 23/05/2020 18:38

I'm a lockdown rule-breaker, OP, and so is DC.

The difference is that he is supposed to be implementing it. Which means he should either go of his own volition, or should be shoved on his way.

YADNBU.

jellyfrizz · 23/05/2020 18:39

So we can now put ourselves at risk, as there never were any rules?

More that people who don't really see themselves or close family as being at risk but who have been following the rules to save those who are (& the NHS from being overwhelmed) will now say "Well, why should I bother if people involved in making the rules aren't?"

cardibach · 23/05/2020 18:42

In reference to the exercising when isolating with symptoms, I think I’m right in saying all the documents are from before lockdown started?
I imagine we are talking about 2 different things. Pre-lockdown rules, and lockdown rules. Looks like the instructions for self isolating, aS for everything else, changed when lockdown started.

thetoddleratemyhomework · 23/05/2020 18:47

DC wasn't even really ill at that stage according to the reports. So a working dad who feels a bit rough cannot be trusted to look after their child - it is a safeguarding issue apparently. Working mums, especially single mums, just have to use screen time and suck it up!!

cunningartificer · 23/05/2020 18:47

I don’t think you understand. If you’re very important the rules don’t apply. This has always been the case and is why people such as Jonathan ‘sword of truth’ Aitken are so surprised when they occasionally do.

LumaLou · 23/05/2020 18:54

@PissOffStayAtHomeDogMum
I agree. Some people may be breaking rules, but those in positions of power and influence ( including government advisors) have to be role models.

Another huge difference is that you have recognised and admitted you have done this, while Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson and some MP’s are still denying that rule breaking has even happened.

@jellyfrizz I hear what you are saying

OP posts:
LumaLou · 23/05/2020 19:02

@jewel1968
That sounds awful. Hope you are all keeping well now.

D.C. has no idea that the vast majority of the population actually have to get on with things and cope as best as they can in times of adversity.

OP posts:
madroid · 23/05/2020 19:03

@WeaselKnickers was a bit quick with her copying and pasting because actually they do define reasonable excuses. And no where does it say you can travel half the country with a car full of contagion, because you are worried about coping with your child if you are ill.

FFS half the country would have done the same IF they thought it was allowed. But they didn't. They did the social and responsible thing and had a bit of backbone

Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

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

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;
(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(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.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

kissmewherethesundontshine · 23/05/2020 19:04

What has confused me is the police fines. If they are only guidelines that common sense can be applied to, why are people being fined? Can those people already fined get their money back as they were interpreting the guidance in their own way?
I was under the impression we were to stay at home unless essential travel was needed for food, medicine etc and exercise and anything else you could be fined for?

JediJim · 23/05/2020 19:04

But there were too many loopholes. First of all it’s was ok for key workers kids to still go to school. Then it was ok to look after a vulnerable person, so people could still travel to look after their relatives or friends.
Then we had the issue of mixing households with stepchildren. I know of a family where the mum has a boyfriend and they both have children with multiple parents. Therefore mixing lots of households together- but that’s ok apparently because they were seeing their parent.
The lockdown was never really a bloody lockdown was it? Surely if it was that deadly in the governments view all schools would have been shut to everyone?
The lockdown had too many loopholes.

HelloMissus · 23/05/2020 19:05

kissme Id say that money was taken by the police illegally.

mbosnz · 23/05/2020 19:05

I'm a bit worried about these delicate little petals that can't manage being crook and caring for a kid being entrusted with the care of the country.

I'm thinking there's people far more qualified out there, who know what it's like to be 3/4 dead, and having to care for your children without running home to Mummy and Daddy, who would quite likely do it better.

SquishySquirmy · 23/05/2020 19:10

cardibach it was after lockdown came in. But I have no way of proving that as the change just happened without any mention anywhere that it was changing. Can't find a record of exactly when it happened.
I remember arguing with DH about it: He wanted to take DC out for a walk at a quiet time in our quiet area, I didn't want him to. The guidelines definitely said we could because we checked (but not in the main summaries - it was in the detail) but it felt wrong to me. Even though we could easily keep a big distance from anyone else, I was worried that neighbours who knew we were SI might see us. We had already been locked in the house for a week by that point (in fact as the first one with symptoms I was allowed to leave but didn't feel 7 days was enough - that's another discussion though!)

That was right at the end of March so after lockdown was announced. I remember it because we rarely argue!

LumaLou · 23/05/2020 19:11

Thanks @maldroid

I couldn’t see where it was allowed

OP posts:
LumaLou · 23/05/2020 19:15

Regardless, guidance was different for people self isolating.

Rules. Like there ever was such a thing!

Was all figment of my imagination.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread