The more I think about it, the more puzzled I am about what Cummings (and Wakefield) would say to defend an allegation they breached regulations.

So here’s a thread on what I believe their position to be and, importantly, what I think is NOT in dispute from them:

1/11

There’s NO DISPUTE they would be in breach of the regulations by travelling to Durham, UNLESS they had a ‘reasonable excuse’ to leave their London home.

So what are they saying was the ‘reasonable excuse’?

2/11

The only ‘reasonable excuse’ Cummings has put forward is that they needed to go to Durham because his sister and nieces lived there and could have provided extra childcare for their son if Cummings and Wakefield needed it.

3/11

But- and this is important - they DO NOT DISPUTE that:

That problem NEVER arose.

Childcare from others was NEVER, in fact, needed.

They NEVER become too ill to look after their son.

In the end, everything they needed to do for their son could have been done in London.

4/11

So if there’s NO DISPUTE that in the only reason for their trip never materialised, what’s the reasonable excuse?

It could only be that they had to leave London JUST IN CASE they’d need extra childcare.

AND

It was necessary because they couldn’t have got it in London.

5/11

So what would have happened if they had stayed in London?

In reality, nothing. (They accept they never actually needed extra childcare)

But- being generous to them- what IF, contrary to what actually happened, they had needed extra childcare while in London?

Then what?

6/11

Are they seriously suggesting that if they’d stayed in London they couldn’t have got the childcare they needed and their son would have been in danger of not being looked after properly?

Just think about that for a second...

7/11

It would mean that Cummings + Wakefield are saying, in London they couldn’t have arranged suitable childcare for their son:

His sister/nieces couldn’t have come to London and collected their son?

No suitable family, friends, colleagues in London could’ve helped?

8/11

If that’s not already hard to accept, add this:

Cummings is one of the most powerful, well-connected people in the country, with family/friends in London.

But despite all those resources, in London his sons welfare was at such risk he had to take him to Durham?

9/11

Of course, I understand Cummings says that he has a reasonable excuse. People will make up their own minds.

My point is, at the moment, its not easy to understand how he does, based on what he does NOT DISPUTE, and the factual scenario he set out yesterday.

10/11

I haven’t forgotten the Barnard Castle trip? But I think that speaks for itself:

“I’m going for a 60 mile drive for a day out at a castle with the family to see if I can do a longer drive tomorrow”

Does anyone think that’s a ‘reasonable excuse’?

11/11

One more thought:

For reasons I’ve already set out, Cummings’s excuse rests on him saying his trip was necessary because he would not have been able to get the childcare help he needed if he’d stayed in London.

When you unpack that, it’s bewildering...

12/*

Put aside help from friends/family in London. Imagine his request to PM’s office or snr cabinet members:

“This is Dom. We’re very sick. I need help to sort out childcare for our son”

Is he saying they wouldn’t WANT to help?

Or is he saying they wouldn’t be ABLE to help?

13/*