Here's what I, clearly naively, thought an independent political journalist might have done with the Cummings news.

1. Hears news from police source

2. Speaks to Cummings to get confirmation - in this case he's not denying he was up in the north.

1/

3. Research what the actual rules were for people at the time Cummings travelled.

That alone is then a story. He travelled at a time when nobody with Coronavirus symptoms was allowed to travel and was responsible for setting the laws prohibiting that.

2/

Whether your 'source' - Cummings - tells you he didn't visit his parents or stayed at the end of the garden or burrowed into a nearby escarpment is neither here nor there. He broke the rules the minute he left his house in London to do a trip other than that which was allowed

3/

4. For a follow-up story dig into what the Cummings's said they were doing at the time they were holed up in Durham. Was this public knowledge first or are we just discovering it? If it wasn't public knowledge was there an attempt to cover up?

4/

Fortunately both Cummings and his partner have written about that time in their lives. They mention it was in London.

Immediately you know that the article where that was mentioned is a lie. So why lie if your actions were perfectly legal? That's story two.

5/

5. Did anyone else know about the illegal trip? That's harder to work about because by this time anyone guilty will be circling the wagons. But you can look back to statements and see if any mention was made of the trip. You also have sources in Downing Street.

6/

6. What you don't need to do is just report what Cummings is telling you. If he's telling you he was camped at the bottom of the garden then you can fact check that and secondly it's irrelevant. The trip is the problem.

7/

What we have at the moment is an evolving story which is evolving with Cummings feeding information which makes him look good and an organisation we assume to be unbiased wilfully publishing that without comment.

8.