ChatterBank2 mins ago
I'll Just Leave This Here
245 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sunny-dave, earning your good opinion is neither here nor there to me. I've no idea of the options that may have been available to him, but in those circumstances my children would be my priority - and frankly I think that most parents would rather their children be with grandparents than with anyone else - so perhaps, in his estimation, his journey was essential. It would have been to me.
Oh, and the other final point is that it should be pretty clear that, unless there is something you aren't telling us, your husband is unlikely to be a public figure responsible for drafting the very rules that have been, or appear to have been, broken. Perception counts for a lot, and it's natural and correct that those who set the rules have to take into consideration not just what they do but how it will be perceived. When Prof. Ferguson had his lover visit him, then the question of how it looks for the person whose advice and research played a huge part in leading the government to effectively outlaw such meetings is hugely relevant and should have formed a part of his thinking, even if on a personal level no harm may have been done.
Yes, I seriously am. In both cases senior officials broke the rules that they had played a large part in creating. In both cases it is hypocrisy. The motive in one may have been particularly shallow but hypocrisy it remains.
Also, as Cummings was no doubt aware, the risk to children from Covid-19 is extremely low; the risk to his parents not so low. As has been further pointed out, if you are healthy enough to drive across the country and back then you're probably healthy enough to provide at least some semblance of care to your children without putting your parents at risk.
The fact that you would have done or thought similar in his position only means that you have the same low regard for the rules. It doesn't serve as a defence.
Also, as Cummings was no doubt aware, the risk to children from Covid-19 is extremely low; the risk to his parents not so low. As has been further pointed out, if you are healthy enough to drive across the country and back then you're probably healthy enough to provide at least some semblance of care to your children without putting your parents at risk.
The fact that you would have done or thought similar in his position only means that you have the same low regard for the rules. It doesn't serve as a defence.
Then find an alternative solution that doesn't involve driving the length of the country and breaking the rules you helped create. It's a nonsense to pretend that such a solution doesn't exist. Friends, neighbours, some other more local service.
If the rules you have drafted proscribe a certain action then you don't take that action. It is not difficult.
If the rules you have drafted proscribe a certain action then you don't take that action. It is not difficult.
