Coronavirus watch: Cummings - the apology he never made

'I recognise that I made an error of judgement for which I apologise. As my wife and I were both feeling ill, we were worried about who would look after our small child. This, I am afraid, clouded my judgement, and we made the mistake of travelling to my parents' home. I realise now that this was wrong, and I would like to apologise to all the people who have been observing the lock-down, and to stress how important it is that we all continue to respect the rules drawn up to keep us all safe.'

Why didn't Dominic Cummings say something like that? OK it's not perfect, and it begs lots of questions: were you and your wife actually feeling ill? And if you were, why did you put yourselves, your child and other road users at risk by driving 260 miles? If you didn't realise what you were doing was wrong, why was so much effort put into concealing it? When did you realise? And why did you not apologise for your behaviour until it was revealed in the press? etc, etc

But IF you want to preserve public support for the lock-down, it's surely better than arrogantly and aggressively pretending you did nothing wrong? The leaflet Boris Johnson sent me was absolutely specific: if you have coronavirus symptoms, you 'must stay at home until the symptoms have ended, and in all cases for at least seven days.' 

We are told, through the nods and winks that have replaced proper government announcements, that Dominic Cummings was not a fan of lock-down, preferring a policy of 'herd immunity' (though, of course, there is no evidence that being exposed to coronavirus gives you immunity), protecting the economy at all costs, and 'if some pensioners die, that's too bad'. So are Johnson and Cummings actually relaxed about the lock-down collapsing? Indeed, would they welcome it, so they can help the economy even if that means more people dying? Or is that just Cummings' view, with Johnson, for whatever reason, afraid to resist?

As usual, with this 'government' of liars, we just don't know.

70 years on Japan and S Korea agree deal on women forced into sexual slavery during WW2

During World War Two, about 200,000 Asian women were forced to work as ‘comfort women’ – sex slaves for Japanese soldiers in military brothels. Many were Korean, and today Japan has agreed to apologise for its actions and pay compensation of £5.6 million to South Korea.

Japan has accepted ‘deep responsibility’ and the South Korean government says the deal will close the matter. Both countries have agreed to stop criticising each other publicly over the issue, and South Korea says it will look into removing a statue commemorating the women, which activists had put up outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul.

It is not clear whether the women will receive direct payments. The wording of the deal suggests Japan will provide ‘support’ and finance ‘projects for recovering honour and dignity and healing psychological wounds.’

Only 46 of the Korean women are still alive. They have tended to regard earlier apologies from Japan as grudging and insincere and they appear divided on this agreement, with some wanting a direct apology to them as individuals and direct compensation.

Hillsborough - at last the truth?

Nearly 26 years after it claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool football supporters, the police officer in charge on the day has finally admitted the Hillsborough disaster was his fault. David Duckenfield made his admission to new inquests into the deaths.

In fact, Mr Duckenfield made a whole series of admissions, among them: that he had lied about the events of the day, that he was ignorant of the layout of the ground, that he was not equipped to be in command of the operation, and that his response when the fatal crush happened was ‘hopeless’.

But counsel for 22 of the families accused him of making a ‘politician’s apology’, and tried to probe him on why it had taken more than a quarter of a century, noting that as late as March last year, he was still denying responsibility.

Mr Duckenfield and another senior officer were charged with manslaughter in a private prosecution in 2000. The other officer was acquitted, while the jury could not agree on Mr Duckenfield. The judge refused a retrial on the grounds that it would be impossible for it to be fair.