It's worth looking back at the last few days to see how the Cummings story has changed.
22nd May: Cummings went to Durham with his partner to self-isolate at his parents' house. Johnson had developed symptoms of coronavirus (symptoms which were later confirmed to be coronavirus which later developed into him nearly dying). At that point, the government advice was for the household to self-isolate for 14 days if one member had symptoms. That included Cummings. However, he was seen running away from Downing Street on the 27th of March, and on the 31st of that month he was in Durham. This was all so "he could self-isolate with his family", something that was explicitly banned. It was reported that Cummings developed symptoms of coronavirus on the 30th of March. We don't know if that was before or after he travelled to Durham, and we don't know when he actually developed symptoms.
23rd May (morning): Cummings went to Durham with his partner because he needed help with childcare. Cummings' parents are over 70, which means they should be shielding. Indeed, Johnson said earlier that month that children should not visit such people due to their increased vulnerability.
23rd May (afternoon): Cummings went to Durham with his partner (who he now says also had covornavirus symptoms) in order to make sure that his child had childcare in case he fell ill as well.
This is where things become interesting. We're a day from when this first broke, and this is the first time that we've heard about childcare. So, is it reasonable?
-His parents are over 70, and thus in the shielding category. As they were the people who were to look after Cummings' child, it appears he broke lockdown rules. This is made worse by the fact that the child had been in close contact with 2 people who had coronavirus symptoms.
-His wife had symptoms of coronavirus prior to travelling to Durham. Therefore, the whole family should have stayed at home for 14 days.
-But, people were allowed to leave home for a few reasons. Does this count as one of them? Dr Jenny Harries (deupty chief medical officer): "Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance." So, he's in the clear, right?
-At the point he travelled, he is saying it was a precaution ("in case he fell ill as well"). So the exception outlined above simply did not apply.
-The advice from the government (and outlined in the same statement by Dr Harries) said that "if the individuals do not have access to...formal care support or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs [NHS volunteers, local council]."
-Of course, the point about his parents being in the vulnverable category and needing to shield trumps all of this. Even if his reason was allowed, to travel to his own parents house when his wife had COVID-19 symptoms and he had been in regular contact with someone who later nearly died from it is simply not allowed.
23rd May Daily Coronavirus Breifing (evening):
Grant Shapps: "The important thing is that everyone remains in the same place while they're locked down which is exactly what happened in I think the case that you're referring to with Mr. Cummings. So, the Prime Minister will have known that he [Cummings] was staying put until he was feeling better."
Now, we know that Cummings was in London when lockdown was announced. Clearly, it wasn't the case.
Grant Shapps: "If you are in a position where you have a young child (in this case 4 years old), and you are worried about the welfare of that child and your ability to [unclear] the wider network of support, then clearly being somewhere where other members of the family can assist, in this case younger other members of the family, then this might be the best place for you to settle and stay, and I think that's all that's happened in this case."
In the space of 2 minutes, Shapps went from trying to say that Cummings was locked down while he was in Durham, to saying that he had to break lockdown in order to possibly protect the welfare of his child in a theoretical future.
But, it wasn't his parent's who would look after his child, it was his sister. So, because his parent's weren't at risk, everything was fine, right?
-Why couldn't his non-infected sister travel down to collect his child?
-His brother-in-law lives in London: why could he not have travelled a much shorter distance to that family member?
-Did they really have no friends closer to them than Durham?
Basically, there were alternatives to a symptomatic household travelling from one end of the country to the other.
Other inconsistencies:
Why did Downing Street say that no member of the Cummings had been questioned by the police when Durham police stated that they had questioned Cummings' father "by force".
-Why did Cummings' wife write an article in the Spectator about "emerging into the comical uncertainty of a London lockdown" when they were self-isolating in Durham?
-The Financial Times reported that Cummings had gone into self-isolation at his London home shortly (~1 day) after Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson had tested positive for coronavirus. The government did not correct this.
This is, of course, before we ask questions about:
-12th April trip to Barnard Castle
-19th April trip to Houghall Woods
-Further sightings in early May (9th/10th)
-The complete undermining of the lockdown by defending him