A 'minor breach'. FFS, that's like saying someone's 'a bit pregnant'. Cummings either breached the regulations or he didn't.
How have we ended up here?
News headlines.... may have, might have, possibly, broke the rules.
In no sane world did his trip to Barnard Castle NOT break rules... fitness to drive for starters.
They considered it a minor breach so no further action will be taken.
However, they found he DID breach the lockdown regulation, of which he was an architect, so surely his position is untenable?
Why does the Prime Minister continue to defend Cummings on the basis that what he did was legal? Even if you accept his preposterous excuse for driving to Durham his subsequent trip to Barnard Castle clearly contravened the law as written in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions)...
First thing I thought of as soon as he started with the convoluted, ludicrous excuses. If he gets away with this we might as well give up on any chance of living in a public serving democracy. I'm not hopeful.
It beggars belief that there are still people that support Johnson/Cummings in the face of what is obvious to everyone, that they, and the majority of Tory MPs, are prepared to lie openly to the public whilst casually belittling those that have sacrificed so much to adhere to government advice...
From the road traffic act......"A person shall be considered to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired." Funnily enough, doesn't mention risking people's lives, including your own family, by going for a test drive to find out... I've heard it all now.
New witnesses cast doubt on Dominic Cummings's lockdown claims
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/23/new-witnesses-cast-doubt-on-dominic-cummingss-lockdown-claims?
IF these claims are verified then he has to go, no more excuses.