Thread by @AdamWagner1

I don't know what Cummings is referring to about there being a get out of Regulation 6 for care of a small child.

Children aren't "vulnerable" within the definition in section 1 and the only mention in reg 6 about reasonable excuses is to access public service childcare

This is Regulation 6 -legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/……

I really don't understand what he is referring to - there may be an implied "reasonable excuse" which relates to the care of a child (I actually think there probably is) but there is no explicit mention of it.

This is the definition of vulnerable people, as you can leave the house to care for them - but these are not children legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/…

Aha, I think I realise what he is talking about - he is confusing the guidance and the law. The law has no mention of children, but the guidance did. See @OmarSalem's blog omarsalem.com/2020/05/23/how…

As I said last night, the guidance was always stricter than the law

As it happens, I think that if the account he gave today is accurate:

1. It wouldn't be in breach of the law as it would be a "reasonable excuse" under reg 6
2. It would potentially breach the guidance

Amazing how confusing the difference between the law and guidance has been

The thing about guidance is that it does include discretion relating to care of children (see above). Assuming his account is correct - and who knows - my view is that he made a tough call in a hard situation, but I'm sure no govt minister would have said it was OK at the time

I'm also pretty sure no judge would convict for a breach of the regulations if he gave this account and it wasn't contradicted.

I'm pretty gobsmacked (not just Twitter exaggeration!) that he is completely confused between the regulations (the law) and the government guidance. No surprises the rest of the country and the police have been hugely confused too