Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
You may have missed the post where I explained that.
The last two allegations that have been made are currently under investigation.
---------- Post added at 11:37 ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 ----------
And as we all know, QCs can disagree amongst themselves.
Regulation 6 (2)b seems clear enough to me, and it is also worth pointing out that the clear message was to stay at home 'where possible'. If DC's view was that his child would potentially not have support if he and his wife became very ill with the virus, it made perfect sense to lock down in Durham, where his son could be supported.
|
Where was the message “where possible?”. It said if you had symptoms you stay at your main resident - not second homes or alternate accommodation.
I’d absolutely love a Cabinet Minister to get on telly and push these lines. They would increasingly look to be acting in bad faith, at a time they need public trust.