Dominic Cummings using his child's autism as an excuse

[Almahart]

So it looks as if the next excuse to be wheeled out is that Dominic Cumming's child is autistic.

My child is autistic. I know many families with autistic children.

This is what I have heard of happening for these families during Coronavirus:

• no school (yes I know schools should be taking vulnerable children. But many are not)
• no respite
• no transport to school even if they are open
• regular activities cancelled
• the fear that provision provided by local authorities through Education Health and Care Plans and suspended under the Coronavirus Act will slowly disappear

I know of many single parents alone with their child who are seriously struggling and who did not break the rules during lockdown.

To use autism as an excuse is beyond low. It is revolting and has made me even angrier than I was before

The title of this thread is also a falsehood. It is not pubic knowledge whether or not his child is autistic, his parents have rightly never commented on that or tried to use it as an excuse. Social media at its worst, just loads of waffle about stuff that isn't demonstrably true

Unfortunately rumours on twitter is one of Barney Castle's specialist areas of misinformation dissemination. So it's understandable that it quickly blew up from there.

If misinformation dissemination is a tool used to influence public opinion (which I can believe), and sensible people realise this, why don't they exercise some cynicism when they read about his child's health or his sister? Surely these are stories which have hugely discredited him (especially the sister one) and therefore they are more likely to have been planted by people wanting to damage him? Why does anyone believe any of the nonsense they read on social media unless it is in reliable press, and in particular why would anyone sensible re-post it?

MeganBacon

Why would you repeatedly hound me over one post when loads of people were saying the same thing in a more serious manner.

Why would you count how many posts people make about Cummings and talk about it?

Why are you effectively trying to shut down criticism of Cummings?

Also since Cummings is notorious for his tactics on social media pre Brexit in trying to influence the vote, if you are a fan of his why are you so keen on discrediting social media commentary?

Surely these are stories which have hugely discredited him (especially the sister one) and therefore they are more likely to have been planted by people wanting to damage him?

Sure, plenty of people have wanted to damage him for years but have failed. Face it, he has damaged himself through his arrogance. He came to believe he was untouchable, that people would swallow any shit (as proved by the massive election victory) and therefore he could do what he liked.

I am very happy to see that he was wrong.

Megan that I agree on with untruths. I've campaigned for people to also remember to leave his son out of this. He didn't have a choice of who his parents are or what they choose to do.

But there are a lot of people also claiming things he did actually say are wrong. Or my favourite - have been misinterpreted.

Aside from the fact I always said we don't know if it's true or not but I don't buy it as a reason anyway.
It was actually a more plausible option for needing specific childcare on hand immediately in case it was needed than by his own admission he just didn't bother exploring childcare options in London.

Not reas the full thread but we have an autistic DS, severely autistic attending special school etc.

We are struggling, so bad, some days we are barely coping. Yet we have managed to not drive the 6 miles to wither of our parents houses to get childcare so dominic cummings can fuck right off sriving 260 miles

@PerkingFaintly

ButteryPuffin, the amusing thing is that the little messagers don't seem to see that they're digging the hole even deeper.

I watched the whole press conference god it was tedious.

1. This is the transcript of Cummings' claim he predicted coronavirus. NB this is his read-out statement, not some off-the-cuff verbal answer where he might have got tongue-tangled:

"Last year I wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning."
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-cummings-statement-speech-transcript-durham-full-text-read-lockdown-a9531856.html

2. His supporters, including "sources close to Cummings", have not yet been able to produce any writing of Cummings where he "wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses".

3. There is a reference in his blog to coronavirus, but he didn't write it last year. He added it between 9 April and 3 May this year (probably on 14 April, when the blog was edited but no caveat given the reader of this – bad blog etiquette in itself).
   Coronavirus: Why did Dominic Cummings say he predicted it?
   www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52808059

4. So at the moment, it looks as if Cummings' claim to have written about this last year was a lie.

5. The messagers are now trying to distract by suggesting that a mention of coronavirus in one of the papers from which Cummings quoted, is the same as "Cummings writing about coronavirus."

But that just makes things worse again. Because he clearly saw the paper, and DIDN'T THINK THE CORONAVIRUS MENTION WAS WORTH PICKING UP. He quoted other bits from the paper instead! After the CV pandemic started... then he decided that CV rated a mention in his blog!

So no! This is not "Cummings writing about coronavirus a year before it happened." It's the opposite!

ButteryPuffin, The words you’ve put in quote marks are not in the transcript of DCs statement. They are taken from a report in the Independent, which paraphrases DCs words. If you watch the interview it has his actual words as he spoke them as part of a response to a question. I’m sure this is an honest mistake on your part but It’s worth noting that if you were Dominic Cummins this would be used as evidence that you lied. Obviously depending on any particular persons lens the incident can be interpreted and argued to suggest different things. The original Blog is about the dangers of pandemics in general being caused by accidents in bio labs citing an article that refers to a corona virus accident. My point was that it seems quite hair splitting to try and use this example to create a narrative that someone is a liar.

Apologies Buttery Puffin I’ve just realised that I’ve misread Perking Faintly’s post who has put your name at start of the post. My post should’ve been addressed to them. Mistake making is a human condition alas!

Any more, ahem, minor corrections you'd like to make to your post, Mirinska, before I destroy it?

Thought I'd give you a sporting chance. Given just how badly you've fucked up, and all.

So, Mirinska, that was a jolly unfortunate post.

If you're going to accuse someone of inaccuracy and make snide comments that about "honest mistakes" and "evidence that you lied", it would help not to be spectacularly wrong from top to bottom while you're doing it.

Cummings' words which I have quoted, (viz "Last year I wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning."), are from the transcript of his read-out statement, exactly as I stated.

They are not, as you state, "a report in the Independent, which paraphrases DCs words".

I'm having a little trouble with the video on the link to the Independent I included (which states quite clearly that the accompanying text is a transcript), so here is the BBC one on YouTube:

Cummings words appear, precisely as I stated, at approx 4:30 mins.

@Ulver

FliesandPies

These bots have the worst names

They all sound a bit Russian.

They all say
Move on, or Be Kind.
They all use the unproven “autistic child” excuse.

They all go into elaborate detail that they somehow have acquired out of thin air.

Hmmm

Ulver, If you have a reasoned argument please use it. Abusive language and false accusations that contributors who don’t agree with you are bots shows weakness and paranoia. Debating the points raised respectfully is the point of a discussion, not personal attacks, mocking remarks and feeble attempts to intimidate and bully others.

Also, you appear to have misunderstood the point that misinformation and vilifying people on social media is dangerous because it has cost lives. This happens to a wide range of different human beings in different circumstances.

BTW, I do remember that he did indeed repeat the claim, or make a similar claim, in answers to questions. Thus, IMHO, digging himself in deeper.

(I could have mentioned this deeper digging in my post, but didn't, because – ironically – I wanted to be sure I was quoting him accurately and I couldn't easily put my hand on his exact words to the journalist.)

And it was just such a stupid, unnecessary lie for him to have told.

He could have stopped at "For years, I have warned of the dangers of pandemics." Or he could have missed off the "Last year" when claiming to have written about coronaviruses.

It was a completely unforced error.

It also occurred in a statement that had obviously been very carefully written and shows the hallmarks of having been very heavily lawyered.

For anyone interested, David Allen Green in the Financial Times uses the statement for a masterclass in how to write or recognise a witness statement. It's about 25 mins long but fascinating.

www.ft.com/video/e82b5a00-3ad5-4d2c-9703-ff14942aa5b1

Oh oh, but I wouldn't want you to start splitting hairs (since you hate it so much), so let me make a very minor correction.

This line from your post is true: "The original Blog is about the dangers of pandemics in general being caused by accidents in bio labs".

So you weren't spectacularly wrong from top to bottom. Merely spectacularly wrong.

Never mind. I'm sure it was an honest mistake on your part. I'd hate to insinuate this was evidence that you lied.

@PerkingFaintly

So, Mirinska, that was a jolly unfortunate post.

If you're going to accuse someone of inaccuracy and make snide comments that about "honest mistakes" and "evidence that you lied", it would help not to be spectacularly wrong from top to bottom while you're doing it.

Cummings' words which I have quoted, (viz "Last year I wrote about the possible threat of coronaviruses and the urgent need for planning."), are from the transcript of his read-out statement, exactly as I stated.

They are not, as you state, "a report in the Independent, which paraphrases DCs words".

I'm having a little trouble with the video on the link to the Independent I included (which states quite clearly that the accompanying text is a transcript), so here is the BBC one on YouTube:

Cummings words appear, precisely as I stated, at approx 4:30 mins.

Faintly Perkin, I was referring to a different part of the BBC video where different wording was used. Your link was from the Independent. There has been a misunderstanding. It’s part of being human. Clearing it up is helpful. If your clarification had been respectful or gracious, I would thank you.

Aw bless.

(BTW, the Independent link that Mirinska was having so much difficulty understanding to be a transcript, was entitled:
"Dominic Cummings: Full transcript of Boris Johnson aide's statement from Downing Street"
"Full transcript of statement given by PM's senior aide in Downing Street rose garden"
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-cummings-statement-speech-transcript-durham-full-text-read-lockdown-a9531856.html)

We won’t all agree on whether a journey involving exercise was too long to be allowed under lockdown. It seems long to me given the spirit of the lock down at the time. Were loads of people doing that for selfish reasons? Yes. Were they challenged? No

@Mirinska

Were they prominent government figures? No.

Were they hypocrites? No.

Did they undermine confidence in the government's covid 19 advice, drag the government into disrepute and continue to do so by not resigning, and contribute to a sense that government anti virus measures were only meant for mugs who don't have friends in high places? Yes, yes, and yes.

You seem to be determined to overlook the fact that Dominic Cummings is a member of SAGE. That's the UK government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, fyi.

Up next, how about a lot of verbiage on the subject of the definitions of 'scientific' and 'emergency/ emergencies'?

We can do 'advisory' too if you'd like, though it has been debated before, with inconclusive results.

DC isn't a member of SAGE, mathanxiety. He attended some of their meetings. Big difference.

He's everywhere, isn't he? You might be forgiven for thinking he was actually a very important member of the government, with the distinction of being unelected and completely unaccountable, especially given the refusal of Johnson to disassociate his government from him no matter how much he embarrasses it. And not just backing Cummings, but going on the offensive against the media, insisting the media is the institution that has lost public credibility. You couldn't make it up.

He attended many meetings - perhaps up to 19 meetings in February and March - and participated actively in them, thus undermining the credibility of the panel's independent advisory role because while he is a man of many hats, 'scientist' isn't one of them and neither is 'independent'.

He is a data miner though, and so are his associates.
A source in Downing Street said that in March Cummings was playing a commanding role in responding to the Covid-19 outbreak. Cummings is understood to be close to Warner, whose brother, Marc, runs Faculty, an artificial intelligence company that the Guardian revealed is involved in an “unprecedented” data-mining operation as part of the government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/revealed-dominic-cummings-on-secret-scientific-advisory-group-for-covid-19
No cloud without a silver lining if you have the inside track...

Marinska?

Abusive language?
What abusive language?

I find creepy MeganBacon asking me if I’m a spurned lover of Cummings because I disagree with ( presumably him) really inappropriate as if everyone in the entire country is angry about this because of sexual jealousy?
Towards a man who is spectacularly unattractive?
Your posts are ever more convoluted and desperate justifications for the unjustifiable.

Why don’t you just Move on and stop wasting your time.

Also since Cummings is notorious for his tactics on social media pre Brexit in trying to influence the vote, if you are a fan of his why are you so keen on discrediting social media commentary?
Ulver you are the person who is so concerned about data mining, having posted prolifically and aggressively on the subject. It follows that you might also be concerned about how that data is used, and perhaps about the potential to spread messages that influence unfairly how some people think. It might then follow that you would be keen yourself to avoid being influenced by unfounded nonsense you read on social media, and sensitive about reposting it. See where this is going?

@MeganBacon

Also since Cummings is notorious for his tactics on social media pre Brexit in trying to influence the vote, if you are a fan of his why are you so keen on discrediting social media commentary? Ulver you are the person who is so concerned about data mining, having posted prolifically and aggressively on the subject. It follows that you might also be concerned about how that data is used, and perhaps about the potential to spread messages that influence unfairly how some people think. It might then follow that you would be keen yourself to avoid being influenced by unfounded nonsense you read on social media, and sensitive about reposting it. See where this is going?

Trying to cut through misinformation (there’s a lot in the media), clarify facts and exchange different opinions seems useful. Like many people who discuss topics on social media, I think respecting others and focusing on the issues is what’s important and I don’t agree with personally attacking people or with public vilification. It’s not about being a fan of someone or hating them.

I agree Mirinska, this should be about facts first and remain unemotional, or judgement is seen to be clouded. DC is a SpAd, not elected, not in Cabinet, shouldn't be a public figure although his detractors have seen fit to propel him into the public arena probably for their own ends. Having thought before the conference that he should go (and posted the same), after this thread and the conference itself I am just deeply indifferent now. He's clever enough to realise that in spite of the fact that he is not a public figure, he has so few friends and so many enemies in government and the civil service that he will definitely become one, therefore he has to behave as if he is one. He won't be making this mistake again.
But I do think it is a shame that all this public vilification discourages talented people from going into politics - they can earn way more money, way more easily with far less personal scrutiny (justified or not) in industry or banking, so that is where the talent goes especially in this country where there is little public censorship and a rampant social media. That's just a very sad by-product.

DC is a SpAd, not elected, not in Cabinet, shouldn't be a public figure

Disagree. Someone who has huge influence over government policy should be accountable for their actions. Civil servants have a code to adhere to, elected officials can be held to account and voted out. Cummings falls between the two and that's not good when he holds such sway. He and his decisions and recommendations shouldn't be hidden away from public scrutiny.