- Is Dominic Cummings guilty of serious wrongdoing? – Probably not
- Did he behave legally, responsibly and with integrity? – Probably yes
- Should he resign because of the media odour? – Probably not
- Will enemies and the media judge and jury force him out wrongly? – Probably yes
The travels of Dominic Cummings (DM) dominated all UK media coverage of news since the Guardian and Daily Mirror on 22 May revealed with great fan-fair that DM had travelled to Durham at the end of March. The revelations were eagerly picked up by broadcasters and other news media: by lunchtime on 23 May, DM had been tried and found guilty of a breach of the anti-Covid-19 (CV) rules by the judge and jury of the media: the penalty to be resignation or firing from his job as senior adviser to the Prime Minister. The question then for those sensing a bloody opportunity was how much damage could be inflicted on DM, Boris Johnson and the UK Government (UKGOV). But Boris Johnson, having heard DM’s account of events, concluded he behaved properly. DM having publicly delivered that account (in the Downing Street Rose Garden) seems to have balanced a lot of tough concerns to reach an honest best efforts judgement which stacks up. Sadly, it is unlikely the executioners have the humility to change tack. There is no court of appeal in the media circus.
WHAT LAW OR REGULATION DID DM BREAK?
The anti-CV restrictions are of two types – law and guidelines. Their purpose is to fight the CV pandemic. That is to minimise the spreading of CV, to suppress it and save lives (Purpose). Both the law and the guidelines require the support and consensus of the public, without which they are inoperable.
The legal restrictions, which it is an offence to break, require a person to stay at home unless they have a reasonable excuse not to do so, and in the law, there is a non-exhaustive list of exemptions, such as taking exercise. There is nothing about by what distance home can be left!
Was driving to Durham, over 250 miles from his home in London, an offence by DM? -not if he had reasonable excuse; the excuse was to stay in an empty house on his parents’ farm, to self-isolate, his wife having CV symptoms; and , if DM himself was incapacitated by CV, to ensure their 4 year old son had proper child care – that is, a vulnerable person was safeguarded. Boris Johnson considers this to be a reasonable excuse, as, it seems, do most people, as even the attackers are not suggesting a criminal offence. DM’s own account in his statement of 24 May confirms that, and his main hindsight regret is that he did not seek the Prime Minister’s approval of his actions in advance since the PM was himself in bed, ill with CV.
However, the Guidelines (and they are only a guide even if they have been presented very forcefully as “must do”) require those with symptoms and their household to self-isolate at home, not generally to leave home. The Guidelines recognise that compliance may be harder with children. Safeguarding children is important. The Guidelines cannot cover all circumstances but have to be applied perhaps by exercising sensible judgement and common sense to all the circumstances: perhaps to do one’s best in the circumstances to fulfil the Purpose? Boris Johnson determined that, relying on DM’s account of events, DM had acted legally, responsibly and with integrity and not in breach of the Guidelines, doing what any father would instinctively do. DM’s own account reinforces that.
THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND THE GUIDELINES?
Some say that, even if DM observed the technicalities of the law and Guidelines, he broke the spirit? Law perhaps has no spirit because it would be too hard to enforce ethereal spirit. But what is the spirit of the Guidelines? Nowhere does it say, but maybe their Purpose is the key. If an action fulfils the Purpose surely it is ok, and, if it does not, surely it is questionable. Whatever one does an overriding principle is to do one’s best to minimise the risk of spreading the virus.
In the UK, a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But, ignoring even that, when it comes to making decisions of welfare in complex circumstances, weighing competing considerations, a person can only do their best and take care to minimise harm to all who may be affected. Those who listened to DM’s account will be able to conclude whether this was a man of integrity doing just that. It was.
Assuming Boris Johnson had the correct facts, and DM’s statement of them is now public, it may be reasonable for him to have drawn the conclusion that DM is not guilty of wrongdoing. However, there is still the fact that DM is an inventor of the Guidelines, part of the team promoting staying at home, and any behaviour, if questionable, can inflict great damage on the public perception and consensus – particularly if given a head of steam.
THE MEDIA STORM
Unfortunately, the Guardian and Daily Mirror reporters have clear objectives, righteous in their eyes at least, to discredit Boris Johnson and UKGOV at every opportunity, and as biliously as possible. The DM story is used by them to fulfil their objectives. Fair game perhaps some may say, even in national crisis where people with influence need to behave responsibly? The media fest and lust for blood that followed is illustrated well by the televised scenes outside DM’s house of journalists and photographers massed together jockeying and pushing for space, crowding and heckling DM with accusations and questions, with venom and added vitriol, (fundamental rules of social distancing not applicable to them, the judge and jury). It is notable that DM in his account had to weigh the factor of the siege on his London home that was a fact at the relevant time.
It has been easy to find, from the queue of volunteers, interviewees to condemn DM, and now Boris Johnson for not firing DM. Steve Baker, Conservative MP, demanded on BBC and Sky TV DM’s resignation, though, in his opening remarks, he made clear that he had never wanted DM to be an adviser to Government at all. Is that relevant to motive? Members of the public easily concluded that DM is a hypocrite, as they have been convinced by the bombardment that he has done something wrong. However, it is a red herring for MPs and others to compare the public “complying “by not seeing loved ones or attending funerals – some emotive comparisons being called upon – but in fair thinking not relevant to DM’s motivation and behaviour.
It is true that since the cry for DM’s head to roll, this story has been a major distraction from the real CV issues. Saturday’s announcements of new positive transport initiatives, and Sunday’s confirmation that getting more children back to school on 1 June is very likely, drew no journalists questions or interest whatsoever! There has been no mention of care homes for 3 days as the execution of DM became news priority. The amount of TV footage and newspaper column metres devoted to the DM story is out of all proportion to its importance, a sad commentary on the quality and integrity of news delivery in the UK. There is only distraction because the media create it, and then that same distraction is used to justify the demand for DM’s dismissal.
Of course there are some MPs , thoughtful and responsible, who believe that this story is damaging UKGOV and therefore the battle against CV and to save the economy of the UK, not necessarily because of DM’s actions or Boris Johnson’s support for him, but because for example the story as publicised is damaging public confidence and trust. A fair point.
There are others who, for political or personal reasons, will use the story for maximum damage to Boris Johnson and UKGOV, irrespective of the rights and wrongs.
Both groups want DM gone as senior adviser. Will any attitudes change having heard DM’s own personal account of his decision-making process?
SHOULD DM’s ROLE AS KEY PERSON TO UKGOV MATTER?
In these circumstances much is understandably being made of concerns around double standards, one rule for the UKGOV and its mates, another for the common citizen and so on. As far as the law at least is concerned there should surely only be one and the same rule for all people.
But is it relevant to consider whether those in key positions should in some ways be treated differently? For example, should they get security protection? Have chauffeurs? Have personal assistants etc? DM is considered by Boris Johnson and others as key to making UKGOV work well and implement its objectives. Those include major reform to the civil service and the culture and operations of other public services – it being argued too that the CV crisis has added weight to the urgency and necessity of considerable change. An abrasive and determined, take-no-prisoners type, as DM is represented to be, may be just what is needed. Vicki Young of BBC cited on the news that in effect DM may be getting his just desserts for not respecting journalists, upsetting MPs and others, not making friends by saying what he thinks and not observing traditional protocols – i.e. not cow-towing to the establishment’s norms. Yet at the same time others are accusing him of acting as if the rules do not apply to him – this latter may be tosh.
Also, at this time, the sheer number of rapid and big decisions; the life and death issues to be addressed when there is little real knowledge; the responsibility on those in leadership positions; the stress that brings; the stress of media pressure, attention and sometimes abuse; the threat of blame; the challenge of keeping numerous balls in the air, plus simple fatigue, arguably creates a massive burden on Ministers and all involved at the top level – and yes far greater than for the average citizen. Questions could be asked:
- Perhaps the media and the public should cut DM and Boris Johnson some slack?
- Even if it is fair to say DM showed poor judgement, which he clearly did not and did his best in a complex situation, is it right the penalty is dismissal and is it sensible UKGOV loses a key operator?
Or, on a different tack, it is surprising that there seems to have been no protocol to be followed if a key person or a member of their household contracted CV. Maybe, as special advisers were not eligible for tests, they were excluded from such protocol? Perhaps the main mistake DM made was not to have cleared his course of action with a senior official, as the PM was ill. No judgement possible on that.
DM’S ACCOUNT OF EVENTS
DM’s own account clearly exhibited an agonisingly difficult decision, balancing competing concerns. He seems to have acted honestly and with great integrity. Sadly, the journalists’ questions and comments reflected that they had already published their judgements and an inability to adapt or change in any way. They had dug their holes already. The accusatory tone in the face of a person acting with humility and concern was revealing: the arrogant belief that they have a right to act as interrogators and judges beggars belief. Perhaps the public deserves better from the established news controllers.
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN? WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
Assuming DM’s decisions were not wanton, and the facts Boris Johnson relied on, as described by DM himself, are correct, perhaps no real wrong was done; the media dogs and others there for the kill should back off; and it may be right he stays in office. But things have probably gone too far.
In reality, given the likely continuing condemnation and venom being expressed from some quarters, and so if the public confidence is seriously undermined by the journalism of hate and righteousness, the potential damage to UKGOV and Boris Johnson is too great, and DM will cease to hold the office he does by 1 June
DM has shown himself to be a thoughtful person. If UKGOV lose his services because of the hatred syndrome which now envelopes it, the UK will be the worse.
