The government has now changed the story of Dominic Cummings trip from one about an individual violating the law to one about the rule of law. And as there’s a lot of loose thinking about what happened here, some pointers on how to analyse this (thread)

The first question: did Cummings break the law? Or did he fail to follow non-binding governmental advice? This is a point that has annoyed me for some time: the two categories are constantly confused in the lockdown debate.

Fortunately @GeorgePeretzQC has done the analysis: It is rather likely that he broke the law. But this is not where the story ends.

(Here’s his analysis https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/1263950927586885634?s=20)

But what if he broke the law to make sure his kid is cared for? 1) If that’s not a permissible excuse under the law, he still broke it 2) That would be a major defect of the rules. It needs to be fixed.

Then: He broke the law. Now what? Breaking the law does NOT automatically mean he should resign. From speeding violations to parking violations lots of violations do not amount to the level requiring resignation.

So: not a legal matter, not my issue. What IS a problem is the way the government chose to react.

What it could have done: “He broke the law. We officially reprimand him. He paid a fine. Plus some money to a charity. He knows others in his situation nevertheless stuck with the rules. He is sorry about what he did” and he stays. They didn’t choose that route.

Instead, we are in a vortex of pretending what he did was right. From the politicians in charge of health to those in charge of the law. A relatively minor breach of the law now becomes a threat to the rule of law. That’s unacceptable.