IT has recently been claimed, and the BBC has taken great care to report it, that more than 60 Conservative MPs wish Dominic Cummings to be sacked. The story is that these MPs are reacting under pressure from furious constituents.

It is too easy to complain; particularly with lockdown providing extra time to do it. It is too easy, if hot under the collar, to sit at one’s computer, possibly with a glass of something comforting, and to fire off an email or two. It is a convenience which tends to favour those who oppose.

It would be better for all concerned if, before rushing to sack Mr Cummings, the case for doing so was considered soberly. The comparison has been drawn between his actions and those of Professor Neil Ferguson and Caroline Calderwood. Concluding, incorrectly in my opinion, that public trust in Government is irretrievably undermined and will only be restored when Mr Cummings loses his job.

There will certainly be a few who, when caught flouting the advice on personal distancing, will use that as the excuse. But they are likely to be the sort of people who already act in their own self-interest. The vast majority, including I suspect the majority of the complainers, will act to keep themselves safe and to safeguard other people.

Mr Cumming’s case is particular in two material respects: he did not act out of self-interest; he believed that he was protecting his family and, in considering his ill-advised trip to Barnard Castle, did not choose a location where there was a considerable risk of an interaction with members of the public. Most importantly, in view of the complaint that he is a hypocrite: he is not and was never, as far as we know, giving advice to the Government on health issues and the guidelines necessary for the control of coronavirus. Prof Ferguson and Dr Calderwood had this as their primary roles.

Mr Cummings, whether one likes it or not, and many obviously don’t, appears to be essential to the performance of the Prime Minister and, by association, Her Majesty’s Government. A large Conservative majority should not fool Conservative MPs into thinking that their hounding of Mr Cummings does not matter.

Ian HC Stein, Dunblane.

I REMAIN enraged by the Dominic Cummings saga. Nothing he said during his press conference in the rose garden of Downing Street changed my view. The subsequent defence by the Prime Minister just made things worse in my view. He has since said that he understands the public anger. Unfortunately he chooses to dismiss it as irrelevant. He wants to carry on regardless.

It was obvious to me that the justification for the trip to Barnard Castle was ridiculous. A poll has subsequently said that a significant majority of people believe it was a lie. Probably, but that's not the most important point to me. The police have said they feel he broke the guidelines ("PM struggles to ‘move on’ after police re-ignite row over aide", The Herald, May 29). I would have wanted to ask the Prime Minister if he thinks that Dominic Cummings lied when he said (unequivocally and with no regret) that he had not breached the guidelines, or was it that he just didn't understand them?

Robin Mather, Musselburgh.

DOUGLAS Ross, who resigned as a minister over the Dominic Cummings affair, has said he "can’t reason" with the claim that Mr Cummings drove to test his eyesight.

I have to say, nor can I. He is showing utter contempt both to Parliament and the whole population of the UK. Does anyone actually believe him?

The cheap stunt that Boris Johnson carried out by taking out his spectacles at his subsequent press conference – did I notice a smirk on his face? – demeans the office of Prime Minister.

Willie Towers, Alford.

ONE assumes that the Prime Minister, as an ardent fan of Sir Winston Churchill, is familiar with the great man’s phrase of “terminological inexactitude” as a Parliamentary alternative for untruth. Is it now the case that “terminological inexactitude” has become a major plank of Mr Johnson’s policies?

Professor KB Scott, Stirling.

I LISTENED to the entire broadcast of the First Minister’s welcome announcement that we are moving into Phase 1 of the lockdown exit plan (“Scotland reunited after nine weeks of lockdown”, The Herald, May 29).

However, I was surprised despite innumerable questions no-one sought how or when we might move to Phase 2 or indeed phases 3 and 4. While I appreciate the caution, we should surely be given some guidance regarding the future. Are we just to be grateful for small mercies or to be treated as adults.

Elsewhere Kate Forbes tells us we haven’t got enough money to survive (“‘Massive headache’ in row over virus money”, The Herald, May 29) so you’d expect that the economic crisis would at least be a consideration in our immediate future. At the very least the Government needs to share its thinking regarding potential timelines and criteria for moving from one phase to another.

While health is of paramount importance, we do not want to wake up some time in the future facing economic carnage which could cause far more misery than Covid-19. We moved late into lockdown with severe mortality consequences; it would be doubly culpable to move late out of lockdown and cause even more economic devastation, no doubt disproportionately to the less well off.

We really need to be told the phase-to-phase plan in more detail.

Ian McNair, Cellardyke.

NOW that the Covid regulations are being relaxed both here and south of the Border we have to assume that the rules will have to be revised regularly.

However, we must hope that this time we ALL have access to the small print the allows those and such and such to exercise their “discretion” and “judgment” to meet the particular needs of their families.

Ian Graham, Erskine.

Read more: The questions Boris Johnson refused to answer on Dominic Cummings at the Downing Street briefing