May I suggest that instead of defending his unelected chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson should defend the people of Hong Kong whose liberty is being eroded by the Chinese government’s legislation being rushed through at the moment?
We have a moral and legal duty to help them, but of course Boris Johnson wants to made huge trade deals with China after Brexit, so he doesn’t want to be seen antagonising their political elite.
He could also defend the Palestinian people against the incursions on their land, but of course the “peace plan” put forward by Jared Kushner has the backing of President Trump, whom he also wants to do a large trade deal with in the future, so that’s not going to happen either.
We deserve better than this. The prime minister has made so many U-turns over the past few weeks that he has formed a circle which is now closing in on him.
It says a lot that the prime minister was prepared to interrupt his bank holiday weekend to defend his anti-democratic friend's inconsiderate behaviour but he did not utter one word of support for the people of Hong Kong in their pro-democracy struggle against the Chinese authorities.
Thanks to Cummings, it will be harder than ever for us to maintain a safe working environment in all key occupations and more people will die. The idiots in our communities now have an official role model flitting between his homes and who has the full support of the prime minister.
A minister last week said there was no point in monitoring the health of people arriving in the UK because it would only reduce Covid-19 infections by 0.5 per cent. As the death toll nears 40,000 this could have saved 200 lives or about a planeful.
So Boris Johnson thinks that in breaking the lockdown rules Cummings behaved “responsibly, legally and with integrity”. Johnson invoking “integrity” is akin to Judas Iscariot asserting that he knows a thing or two about loyalty. But it comes as no surprise.
What is extraordinary is that Johnson is prepared to make such a fool of himself by demonstrating just how pathetically dependent he is on his chief adviser.
D Maughan Brown
One rule for us
The considered opinion seems to be that the UK lockdown of 23 March was introduced perhaps a week and a half too late. The explanation now given for the delayed response is that the government felt that the British public would not be prepared to accept the loss of freedom that the strict lockdown would have entailed.
As the prime minister’s chief advisor, is it too much of a stretch to presume that Dominic Cummings played a key part in the decision-making process and that his subconscious judging of the rest of us, by his own moral and societal attitudes and standards, perhaps impacted on his advice. After all it is common knowledge that the Cabinet has expressed real surprise at the positive and highly supportive attitudes to the restrictions that have been shown across the country.
One can only surmise that had the government shown greater faith in the nation’s resilience and acceptance of self-sacrifice, then the course of Covid-19 might have played out rather differently, with a much-reduced loss of life.
M T Harris
In his letter, Fawzi Ibrahim uses the analogy of a car mounting the pavement to avoid colliding with a juggernaut as a metaphor to justify Dominic Cummings' trip to his relatives. What if the pavement was crowded with pedestrians? Would it still be common sense to kill or maim them just to avoid the collision?
Up to the task?
If Dominic Cummings lacks the ability to organise childcare locally to his home, how useful can he be in helping to solve the really complex issues the government is facing?