Granted the rules may have been badly constructed, but they were the rules.
And according to those rules, he was in the clear taking the kids to Durham.
Excursions whilst up there or a second trip, extremely shaky ground.
Granted the rules may have been badly constructed, but they were the rules.
Reporting methods?Let's make one thing clear. I am not defending what he did, merely pointing out the nuances of making someone a scapegoat because of media reporting methods.
On the first bit I don't agree, if he and his wife both had serious symptoms (they didn't)and so they couldn't provide child care (they could), then it would have been worth the risk for the child to be taken care of by someone else. In that case the correct response would not be to go live next to your parents but would have been to seek assistance from social services.And according to those rules, he was in the clear taking the kids to Durham.
Excursions whilst up there or a second trip, extremely shaky ground.
His wife wrote an article while in Durham, reporting on "London Lockdown " and the difficulties.
And according to those rules, he was in the clear taking the kids to Durham.
It's all academic now, gone by teatime.
Will it make any difference?
Cummings can still advise Johnson privately, I cant see things changing much
the person we really want to see gone is Matthew Elliott he has the most influence, but he is kept out of the media.