Why are they only telling us this "rule" now, then? First anybody has heard of it (I agree it is a sensible rule if a child is reasonably likely to come to harm).
But could Mr Cummings *really* not cope with a mere 7 days or so of solo parenting while his wife was ill without risking harm to his own child? Why hasn't the family referred themselves to social services before now if that were the case? Or if it's a juggling work/childcare thing why is that different to anybody else who is having to do exactly the same thing for weeks on end at present?
I agree with the social services help. I don't know if it's needed in all safe guarding issues but you'd have thought so.
If only a journalist has thought to ask the general question, if there is a safe guarding issue do you think someone should refer themselves to social services? I didn't think to ask the question so wouldn't have done either if I was in their shoes.
If one continues on the tact of a safety issue for a child to its logical conclusion, then the argument for Mr Cummings might unravel. That's before you even get onto the second journey or is it several journeys. This bit is confusing as the BBC headline says second journey but they refer to several journeys in their report.
Doss this mean only a second journey out of several journeys might not be reasomable? I don't know if the other journeyz were reasonable for someone who is living up north, if you ignore the fact they got up there.
Also why did the police speak to his father but not Mr Cummings or his wife? They offered security advice, after deeming no further action was required. I wonder what led them to believe no further action was required and would other forces have acted the same? Different forces have different rates of fining.
If Mr Cummings did indeed travelled back down south, why? Surely it wasn't for meetings as he can use video conferencing.