By Gabriel Princewill
Dominic Cummings was emotionally vulnerable when he broke lockdown rules. That’s an inference made by an assessment of the circumstance sin which he found himself. It is not a justification for his actions.
Mr Cummings has been pilloried by the press and Mps who are unsatisfied with his actions in driving to Durnham to see his family. The reasons are clear: he broke lockdown regulations.
However, the regulations did make allowance for seeing a vulnerable child, and for all the unconvincing justifications he provides, it cannot be said that Mr. Summing wasn’t psychologically vulnerable at the time.The British government has not said this, perhaps viewing it as a self pity card, or the idea may simply have eluded them. However, it is a logical deduction that can be objectively made, no matter how unconvincing his account is.
At the height of a unique pandemic, in which Cummings found himself at the helm of government, it must have been daunting for him to realise that his boss had contracted Covid-19, and so had the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Shortly after, he hears his wife is displaying symptoms, and then his daughter throws up. Covid-19 appeared to be an unwelcome visitor knocking at his door.
It is quite conceivable for many ordinary people to act just as impulsively as Cummings did, th justify it. However, in a vulnerable state of mind, it mitigates it. That should excuse his actions, not justify it.
The impact of Covid-19 affected people differently.Many people would have been alarmed by the soaring number of deaths announced on a daily basis. This was enough to intensify feelings of fear and anxiety.
Mr. Cummings had just heard his wife had symptoms of the virus, after knowing that the Prime Minister had just had the virus himself. It is intuitively plausible to conclude that he would have been alarmed and acted impulsively.
Wrong actions can never be justified, but they can be mitigated in circumstances of obvious vulnerability, like the present one where a killer virus was circulating in the country. The guidelines provided leverage for discretion. Cumming’s discretion was be flawed, but could have been inevitable in his state of mind.
It is impossible to predict how people will react in a situation of genuine panic. His ill child was also vulnerable, and though it would have more prudent to arrange for someone else to fill in the gap, the reality is that he didn’t do that.
A man of Mr.Summing’s position in government should have had the foresight to know that he could be seen and recognised, but he couldn’t handle the heat of the reality.
Offence
Mr. Cumming’s offence is not worth a sacking, not under Covid-19 scary conditions. Not apologising was unhelpful, but his is still in a vulnerable state.
His decision to drive with his potentially infected wife and child smacks of negligence, but he could reasonably argue that they are members of the same household. After all, the guidelines allows the pubic to see members of their household.
The agitation against Cumming’s conduct by MPs and members of the public has been understandable, but ill judged. A breach of regulations cannot be used for justifying other breaches under dissimilar conditions to Cummings.
Recent adjustment have been made to clarify that aspects of the regulation so that members of the same family cannot cite childcare as an excuse in future.
Reasonableness and commons sense should always prevail, could be maintained until the rules change.
According to Mr. Cummings testimony, he had Symptoms of Covid 19 and felt his wife was also ill.
Events
Mr Cummings account depicts a series of events that led him to drive home from Downing Street 200 miles away.
He then returned to the office, despite having spent time with someone he strongly suspected to have coronavirus. They drove to Durham that evening, and he developed symptoms himself overnight.
His account has been subjected to criticism from all quarters, including accusations he may be evading the truth in parts of his story.Whatever the true account, if it is factual that both his wife and daughter had symptoms of Covid-19, then he would qualify for being a vulnerable person.
Alleged contradictions between Mr.Cumming’s account and that of his wife have been highlighted by his detractors. One in particular is featured from an article she wrote in a Wakefield’s article. She wrote: “That evening as I lay on the sofa, a happy thought occurred to me: if this was the virus, then my husband, who works 16-hour days as a rule, would have to come home.”
By her husband’s recollection, he had already been home. And why did Cummings return to the office after spending time with his symptomatic wife?
His account or its credibility should be put aside, and his actions mitigated by the fact of his vulnerability. He would have amassed enemies, but the fact is he has more to offer to offer as the government’s strategists tasks with getting results. An apology for the furore his actions has sparked would have been advisable, but Cummings was undoubtedly concerned about the potential repercussions of doing that.
The row has still not really been worth the level of dissension and hostile feeling arising from his missteps.
Cummings also said the family went to the “outskirts” of Barnard Castle. But the location where they were seen, next to the River Tees between Ullathorne Rise and Gill Lane, is on the far side of the town from the Cummings family property, and is close to a considerable number of homes.
He was sure caught slipping here, but I agree with many analysts with whom I have discussed this matter, that it does not merit a sacking. A reprimand would suffice for the nature of his transgression.