I am going to make one absolutely final last point on Durhamgate & then throw all my electronic devices into the Mariana trench and join the Carthusians. The steel man of the case against DC is that he clearly violated the guidance given by the government, in letter & spirit. >

This is one source of all the anger against him, because lots of people have understandably been treating the guidance, and the government slogans, as though they themselves are the rules. This is partly due to crap government communication.

But the actual law on this, the statutory instrument that gives the govt the lockdown powers, is a lot more complex and nuanced than "Stay home". Look at section 6 here, Restrictions on movement: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/pdfs/uksi_20200350_en.pdf

S6 says don't leave home "without reasonable excuse", and gives a whole load of examples of what reasonable excuses might be. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but in any case it *clearly* envisages the kind of situation in which DC and family found themselves.

So it is simply not true to say that DC has "broken the law" or "bent the rules" - with the possible exception of that Castle Barnard trip (which is defensible but only just). What he has done is take actions which many ppl have *taken* to be forbidden because of bad messaging.

Part of the problem here is that the relatively simple question of whether the Durham trip was illegal - it pretty clearly wasn't - has become entangled with loads of other much harder questions about whether govt policy has been right, or just, or well-communicated.

And of course with all people's justified and normal anger and upset and sadness and frustration arising from this grim situation. But even with all that in mind, I think it's pretty important to be clear on the specific question of the legal position.