Read on Twitter
As ever, you have to assume people act in good faith. The Cummings story is no different. His was a very human reaction. Worrying about whether he and his wife could properly care for their 4yr-old if they were both sick was natural.
It appears he didn't flee London (a hotspot at the time) to *avoid* getting coronavirus, as his wife already had it and he knew he probably did too.
So it seems he left to get childcare from the nearest feasible family members. That was the 'reason' for the long distance travel.
So it seems he left to get childcare from the nearest feasible family members. That was the 'reason' for the long distance travel.
It's plausible that on arriving at his sister's spare property, he and his wife reassessed the situation and felt that it was best keeping themselves isolated from his sister and their family. So they did the childcare themselves.
BUT in doing so, they then opened up his sister to the charge that she was breaking the rules of lockdown. Cummings also then invalidated the reason for his journey too, and was also open to the charge he had broken the rules.
A visit to yr parents garden is another rule breach.
A visit to yr parents garden is another rule breach.
One problem is that once he opted not to have any childcare, his rationale for staying in Durham will be seen as that it was just a 'nicer' place to be (more garden space for a youngster?) Which is obviously a breach of the rules.
Whether the *law* was actually broken will be a matter surely for lawyers and the cops. It will expose whether the law had loopholes or a lack of clarity too. And many will ask why those loopholes were not made known to the wider public.
