Just got round to reading the local paper (Bucks Herald) to see the publication of my latest letter-to-the-editor. Also this week, the other local (Leighton Buzzard Observer) published my photo of a great tit leaving its nest in a ceramic deer head on our back wall, but that’s another story.
Back to the letter. I wouldn’t say I was unquestionably in agreement with Dominic Cummings’ dash to County Durham to secure necessary childcare for his son, rather I was pointing out the hypocrisy and nastiness of some of those railing against him.
My letter in full reads:
I refer to last week’s editorial that endorsed the “Dominic Cummings must go” mantra.
On balance I believe that Mr Cummings’ motives were honourable – doing what he felt was best for his family – but that he was guilty of errors of judgement, given his job and the enemies he has made. Because those errors of judgement have led to energy being distracted from fighting Covid-19 then, on paper, the principled thing is for him to resign.
In other words, he must pay for having honourable motives.
Is this fair, when a pack of press-hounds knowingly shattered the social-distancing rules, their puerile motive being to get a better shot or extract a juicy quote?
What were the motives of the Durham police, who lied about having spoken to the Cummings family about breaching lockdown?
Labour MP Emily Thornberry’s motives were surely political – tinged with her unique brand of turpitude – when she endorsed the vile verbal and egg-throwing abuse aimed at Mr Cummings. It should be noted that he is actually one of her constituents, so theoretically entitled to an open ear and fair consideration, not incitement to violence.
While some might think that Mr Cummings has not come out of this episode smelling of roses, there are plenty of others who smell a lot worse.
I could also have referred to the irony that Jesus said something like, “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone,” and that some of Mr Cummings’ harshest critics were Bishops, whose mission of compassion was crushed by their crusade of condemnation, because it suited their personal politics. But I didn’t think of it at the time.
I expected my letter to be a lone hiccup in an anti-Cummings’ banquet, so I was surprised to read a regular columnist (Alex Pratt) in the same issue say that Mr Cummings had “not broken any law or guidance”. I assumed Mr Pratt, given his anti-Brexit running commentary, would want Mr Cummings’ head on a platter, a commentary for which I have criticised him in previous letters. Maybe I’ll go easy on him next time. I said Maybe.
I suppose I refuse to be harsh on Mr Cummings because I too have broken the lockdown rules, or at least encouraged my elderly Mum to do so. For many years now, she has enjoyed two walks most days, in the early morning to buy the newspaper, and in the afternoon to admire people’s gardens and enjoy the occasional natter: in total, about 1½ miles – not bad for a nonagenarian. Suddenly stopping her walks for 12 weeks per the lockdown rules would have been catastrophic for her physical and mental health. So I agreed that she could go for one daily walk, providing she kept at least six feet from others and didn’t pop into the shop. (That last instruction didn’t work so well but that, again, is another story.)
I consider her walking lockdown-breach to be reasonable because of her particular circumstances, and Mr Cummings obviously felt the same about his. The concept of reasonableness in law is very powerful, and indispensable to the smooth functioning of, well, everything. No law or contract can include every possible eventuality or nuance, so when something isn’t covered or detailed to the nth degree, people have to make a ‘reasonable’ decision, and being honourable is often a good reason. There’s no red line as to what is reasonable and what isn’t; it’s more like a pink smudge. I believe my decision for Mum was the right side of said smudge, whereas Mr Cummings was possibly in the pink.
No comments:
Post a Comment