Seems like a very unequivocal denial by number 10 of the new hearsay stories. So that'll be proved one way or another, Cummings wouldn't survive lying about this and there will be records. So balance of probability is they're false allegations.

So what do we have? Let's mentally change the situation so that Cumming's parents and sister lived close by, and there was an unused house convenient to her so she could do the shopping. Anything bad about Cummings and family going there? I don't think there is.

So the only real point of contention is whether it was within the guidance to allow a drive to Durham. Sealed box, isolated inside, possible risk of breakdown, possible pitstop, not a brilliant idea.

Against that stay in London, constant doorstopping preventing shopping being delivered without risk of contamination from the group of paps (cf yesterday), risk of child being taken into care.

Seems to have been within deputy CMO guidance that care of a young child is an exceptional circumstance. That's what the police seemed to think, having received a report they rang Cumming's father, he explained, they moved on to discussion of security arrangements.

So assuming the new allegations aren't upheld, that doesn't leave much. The worst part of this is the impression Cumming's opponents are giving to people that he saw his parents - he didn't - when they couldn't see theirs. That's hurtful and inflammatory.

Pretty much all the attacks are "I couldn't see my dying gran, but Cummings went to see his parents", that sort of thing. That should be contradicted now by the journalists, but it won't be. In the worst case, that now risks people ignoring any restrictions.

Be clear, if Cummings' parents had died, he wouldn't have been in hospital with them. He would have been subject to the same restrictions as anyone else regarding their funeral. This is a completely false trail.

I don't actually even like him - he's arrogant and thinks he's cleverer than he is, and although there's something about the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind here, he wasn't quite so instrumental even to Brexit and certainly not the election win as people think.

But this ludicrous tendency towards chasing someone who is disliked for other reasons down is reprehensible, and in this case ignores rules of good journalism to verify sources (especially if the new allegations are false, but that's to be seen).

Let's see what happens with the new allegations, but if these are reliably proven false, those journalists should agree they'll resign. Let's have skin in the game on both sides.

More than anything else, sections of the press look to me like one of those rather stupid giants in fantasy films who think they've stamped their tiny opponent to mush, celebrate, not knowing he's climbed up the back of their leg and is about to stab them in the back of the knee.