why exactly are you defending him?

The police confirmed that, when they spoke to his dad, that they were all in the house - so he knowlingly brought at least one ill person to his parents house.

He blatantly broke all the rules which said not to travel such long distances (thereby risking people if you need to stop on the way, or the support services if you break down), knowingly moving the virus from an area it was prevalent at the time to one in which it wasn't, not to go back to work if you've been in contact with someone who likely has it and certainly not to go to the houses of people who are an order of magnitude more vulnerable.

He then suggested that, having doubts about his eyesight he went on a significant car journey.

His judgement appears to be non-existent.

His circumstances were not unique. I had a very similar set of dilemmas (and a vulnerable kid) at the start of lockdown. The idea of driving across the country to put my aging parents at risk never even vaguely entered my mind.

He's risked his own families lives by his awful judgement. He should go.

This isn't a witchhunt - witches don't exist. This is holding an unelected employee to account for poor judgement and for breaking all the rules. There have been at least two others in similar situations who went quickly, quietly and were condemned by the politicians, despite demonstrably not risking people's lives in the manner DC clearly has.

So, why are you arguing for him?

Posted By: Cardiff Canary, May 25, 17:35:56