The Government is opting for investigative journalism to continue into Dominic Cummings breaching lockdown rules
I can see that the Dominic Cummings issue will run on for some time before being resolved , and here is one reason why. The story broke the weekend of May 23rd after a month of investigative journalism that started after a mid-April phone call to The Guardian with the extraordinary news that Dominic Cummings was not in his London home, as one would have imagined from the Spectator article, but was in fact in Durham. Now it tuns out that his presence there was by then an open secret in the local community. Whatever the recent explanation has been, I would expect that a large percentage of those who knew in April would have been unimpressed that Cummings did not "Stay Home" - when as we've seen in national reactions many people had made great sacrifices in order to literally "Stay Home" ,
Initially there were denials that Cummings had ever left the Durham farm; as far as I can see it was only when witness evidence emerged that the Barnard Castle trip was admitted. On 23rd May I was on BBC Radio 4 "Any Answers", calling for his dismissal (& other points) in response to the presenter's question , and later that day Grant Shapps told the nation on the daily briefing that Cummings had never left the farm, a claim rapidly proved to be untrue.
If Cummings was as arrogant/careless as to undertake a flagrant breach on Easter Sunday, there may have been others. His statement listed times when he had been seen, and he didn't declare any other excursions. It certainly struck me as a Witness Statement as the Financial Times analysis demonstrates - "I know you have this much evidence, so let me explain that evidence away".
Of course he was quite ill (or was he? - this info comes only from unreliable witnesses, i.e. Cummings and his wife) . But, anyway, calls to The Guardian hotline that have now been triggered by the story breaking will take more time to investigate. Of course by now, if you regularly walk in the woods and if one day several weeks ago you saw Dominic Cummings, then you may not now recall exactly which day that was. So it could be several weeks before there either is - or is not - further news based on May calls rather than April calls.
What are the options now for the Government? I can see three distinct options.
1.RESOLVE IT NOW (quick)
Respond to MP's concerns (from all Parties ) and the majority public concern by taking the justified step of bringing Dominic Cummings' assignment as the PM Special Adviser to an end (or agreeing his resignation) - justified by his breach of the lockdown rules, on his own initiative without apparently either considering the Public Health implications of this example & without consulting anyone about the implications of breaching the rules; and we can note the precedents of two earlier resignations, Catherine Calderwood and Neil Ferguson.
2. HOLD AN INQUIRY (slower but on a defined timescale)
Call a Civil Service Inquiry, in which the full facts can be established.. The Inquiry could call for evidence (including the secret evidence Boris Johnson says that he has seen but will not provide) - so far it's only what was known to have been witnessed that has been admitted following earlier official denials. Records from all of the Cummings phones should be made available,
3. LEAVE IT TO INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM (slower still, longer process, and without the control of the investigation, the evidence and the witnesses that an Inquiry would ensure).
Continue without either of the above actions; that will mean the process of inquiry will inevitably continue, but via investigative journalism. We do not censor the Press and this is of major public interest because of the number of people who feel that they made sacrifices to follow the rules while Dominic Cummings did not.
There has been some comment that the Press have appointed themselves as Judge and Jury. But that's clearly not the role that they fill - a decision has to be taken, and it has to be taken by the Prime Minister. Investigative journalists identify evidence.
If the Government does not take option 1 or 2, then by default we will be in option 3. If that is the preferred Government option this will run on for some time and be a distraction.
The choice between these three options is up to the Government.
Initially there were denials that Cummings had ever left the Durham farm; as far as I can see it was only when witness evidence emerged that the Barnard Castle trip was admitted. On 23rd May I was on BBC Radio 4 "Any Answers", calling for his dismissal (& other points) in response to the presenter's question , and later that day Grant Shapps told the nation on the daily briefing that Cummings had never left the farm, a claim rapidly proved to be untrue.
If Cummings was as arrogant/careless as to undertake a flagrant breach on Easter Sunday, there may have been others. His statement listed times when he had been seen, and he didn't declare any other excursions. It certainly struck me as a Witness Statement as the Financial Times analysis demonstrates - "I know you have this much evidence, so let me explain that evidence away".
Of course he was quite ill (or was he? - this info comes only from unreliable witnesses, i.e. Cummings and his wife) . But, anyway, calls to The Guardian hotline that have now been triggered by the story breaking will take more time to investigate. Of course by now, if you regularly walk in the woods and if one day several weeks ago you saw Dominic Cummings, then you may not now recall exactly which day that was. So it could be several weeks before there either is - or is not - further news based on May calls rather than April calls.
What are the options now for the Government? I can see three distinct options.
1.RESOLVE IT NOW (quick)
Respond to MP's concerns (from all Parties ) and the majority public concern by taking the justified step of bringing Dominic Cummings' assignment as the PM Special Adviser to an end (or agreeing his resignation) - justified by his breach of the lockdown rules, on his own initiative without apparently either considering the Public Health implications of this example & without consulting anyone about the implications of breaching the rules; and we can note the precedents of two earlier resignations, Catherine Calderwood and Neil Ferguson.
2. HOLD AN INQUIRY (slower but on a defined timescale)
Call a Civil Service Inquiry, in which the full facts can be established.. The Inquiry could call for evidence (including the secret evidence Boris Johnson says that he has seen but will not provide) - so far it's only what was known to have been witnessed that has been admitted following earlier official denials. Records from all of the Cummings phones should be made available,
3. LEAVE IT TO INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM (slower still, longer process, and without the control of the investigation, the evidence and the witnesses that an Inquiry would ensure).
Continue without either of the above actions; that will mean the process of inquiry will inevitably continue, but via investigative journalism. We do not censor the Press and this is of major public interest because of the number of people who feel that they made sacrifices to follow the rules while Dominic Cummings did not.
There has been some comment that the Press have appointed themselves as Judge and Jury. But that's clearly not the role that they fill - a decision has to be taken, and it has to be taken by the Prime Minister. Investigative journalists identify evidence.
If the Government does not take option 1 or 2, then by default we will be in option 3. If that is the preferred Government option this will run on for some time and be a distraction.
The choice between these three options is up to the Government.
Comments
Post a Comment