Zorro's Mask for Maitlis

The Southwest seems to have the highest R number in the UK at present, with a figure of 0.9. So, with lockdown easing, I got a mask and test drove it yesterday.

The problem with masks for any wearer of spectacles is that your exhaled breath shoots up behind your glasses and fogs them. Mine is made of microfibre, which is particularly good at trapping small particles. Behind it I simply place a wad of kitchen roll that I replace each time I use it, which I don't think will be often with R at 0.9, as I don't intend going out much.

Back to Cummingsgate and Emily Maitlis' censure by the BBC:

This is what Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight (I have separated each statement for clarity):

“Dominic Cummings broke the rules, the country can see that, and it’s shocked the government cannot.” 

“The longer ministers and prime minister tell us he worked within them, the more angry the response to this scandal is likely to be. 

“He was the man, remember, who always got the public mood, he tagged the lazy label of “elite” on those who disagreed. 

“He should understand that public mood now. One of fury, contempt, and anguish. 

“He made those who struggled to keep to the rules feel like fools, and has allowed many more to assume they can now flout them. 

“The prime minister knows all this, but despite the resignation of one minister, growing unease from his backbenchers, a dramatic early warning from the polls, and a deep national disquiet, Boris Johnson has chosen to ignore it. 

“Tonight, we consider what this blind loyalty tells us about the workings of Number 10. We do not expect to be joined by a government minister, but that won’t stop us asking the question.” 

Can anyone honestly doubt the truth of these words without mendacious twisting of logic, evidence and fact?

Firstly, there can be no doubt Cummings broke the rules – he knowingly transported the virus across multiple counties, which is something no other lockdown flouter knowingly did, and in direct contravention of Johnson’s speech outlining the rules of lockdown, which I quote below:

"From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction - you must stay at home. Because the critical thing we must do is stop the disease spreading between households. That is why people will only be allowed to leave their home for the following very limited purposes: 

• shopping for basic necessities, as infrequently as possible one form of exercise a day - for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household; 
• any medical need, to provide care or to help a vulnerable person; and 
• travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home. 

"That’s all - these are the only reasons you should leave your home. You should not be meeting friends. If your friends ask you to meet, you should say No. You should not be meeting family members who do not live in your home. You should not be going shopping except for essentials like food and medicine — and you should do this as little as you can. And use food delivery services where you can. If you don’t follow the rules the police will have the powers to enforce them, including through fines and dispersing gatherings."

He did not investigate alternative childcare in London, where the family had relatives.The excuse for the trip to Barnard Castle is not even worthy of a 5 year old. His son having autism and special needs is a fabrication and has been traced to a single Tweet by a supporter of his, whose account has since been deleted.

Secondly, he refused to apologise. This, more than anything, enraged those who either abided by the lockdown or lost loved ones. Had he apologised and shown some contrition, that would have probably been the end of the matter. He showed supreme arrogance.

Thirdly, Boris Johnson threw a protective ring around Cummings – something he was singularly unable to do with care homes. He was defending the indefensible.

Fourthly, Cummings is of the establishment and was instrumental in developing the pandemic messages – messages he considered himself above. That demonstrates hypocrisy.

Fifthly, a government minister did resign – there can be no dispute about that. There has also been a backbench rebellion over the issue.

Sixthly, an Opinium poll, confirms that 81% of the nation believes Cummings broke the rules, supports Maitlis' assertion. That 68% believe he should resign adds to the swell of public opinion.

So, I ask, what was factually incorrect about what Maitlis said?

Impartiality is not appeasement and journalism is about truth. When the weight of evidence points incontrovertibly in one direction, doggedly reporting both “sides” and masking it as impartiality can result in misleading coverage.

Also it’s a matter of trust. Now I have never had any trust whatsoever in Boris Johnson. That’s actually incorrect – I’ve always had trust that he will do whatever is in his own best interests, but even that trust has now gone, as his actions are patently against his own interests.

Trust in government is important and Johnson, by his defence of Cummings, has totally and utterly demolished that, even among some of Johnson’s most ardent supporters - and even among prominent Brexiteers.