Anyway back to those Regulations. Here are the relevant facts and pertinent questions - trust me, I'm a lawyer:
- The Regulation states baldly, 'During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.'
- The Regulation then has thirteen sub-clauses which list examples of what will constitute a reasonable excuse.
- Those thirteen sub-clauses are not intended as an exhaustive list - there can clearly be other unspecified examples of reasonable behaviour. It is into this unspecified category that Cummings asserts his behaviours fit. That assertion is his right. It is the right of anyone else caught up in this wretched pandemic (so that means all of us) to attempt to exploit what lazy journalese calls this 'loophole'.
- So the two proper questions it seems to me are these: (i) was that initial 260 mile jaunt to Durham reasonable in the context of Cumming's precise situation vis-a-vis childcare? (ii) (and this I think is the more difficult one for Cummings) was that shorter excursion to Barnard Castle also reasonable in all the circumstances?
One final biblical thought - those who live by the sword, die by the sword.