READING the transcript of Dominic Cummings statement to the media (https://preview.tinyurl.com/ybtc27pa) is more illuminating than listening to him. It is full of holes and inconsistencies that give one serious pause for thought.
I am not going to attempt a forensic examination of it. Firstly I am not really qualified but more importantly I do not have the resources to check details. Others I am sure will.
But there are points which are easily examined. For example, right at the beginning of the saga Cummings tells us that the 'usual childcare' arrangements in London were not available. Yet by the time he returns 15 days later they are, in his words, able to 'enjoy childcare'. Either way it is an odd professional couple who have not nailed down their care package.
More critical to me is his failure, before embarking on the five hour drive to Durham, to consider his security options. He says he was under siege at home. Yet he does not turn to the extensive Number 10 security arrangements for assistance. Indeed the real escape for him was right there.
If he had explained the situation the security team would have advised him to take the Durham option BUT driven the family themselves. Why? Because the media scrum would have been left at Cummings home, securing him and his family AND ensuring their whereabouts were known.
Frankly I find it equally worrying that a senior adviser with all the knowledge he will have in his head is able to vanish from his home and remain in Durham ex-communicado. Or did he?
Then of course there is the clearly questionable eyesight test. His wife drives so why did she not drive if he was not up to it? That is what we did in similar circumstances when in west Wales. What would a short drive tell him more than was already obvious? Why if he was that bad did he risk his wife and the child? Once they knew he was OK why did they not turn around and come home?
It sounds far too much like a construct to explain why, on his wife's birthday, they took a drive to a beauty spot.
And we have as yet no idea how long they were there. CCTV en route will be checked pretty soon. If brief, OK. If not, then not OK.
One more point worth considering is how many words are spent convincing us of his enthusiasm for lockdown.This would be fine but we now have allegations of revisions to his blogs from that earlier period.
So much of what he writes has all the hallmarks of hindsight. A version put together to cover all the various allegations just well enough to be credible. Except not quite. One PR trick is visible. He concentrates on debunking one allegation that is palpably not true.
He reveals a chaotic situation inside Number 10. No testing of key personnel. People at work after being ill but untested, others gpoing off variously. He makes much of how important his work is, especially with his cheerleader off sick, but he appears able to vanish without rocking the boat.
In the end the real problem is simple. He made a bad decision. He has been slow to confess the details. He is a spad but became the story. The decent thing is always to fall on your sword. Thus he is further convicted of arrogance.
There are only three logical conclusions:
One – the Johnson secret he holds is massively significant;
Two – this is the diversion, the real story is huge and imminent and will break the day he announces he is quitting;
Three – It is he who is in charge of Johnson.
All are entirely improper, unreasonable and corrupt.
No comments:
Post a Comment