'Broke a trust' is slightly more impressive than 'he might have had an accident that required the attendance of the emergency services', but the fact remains that his actions posed neglible risk to anyone. If you want a lynching then fair enough, but count me out of the posse.
Anyone who decides to abandon social distancing as a consequence of his 'example' was quite clearly looking for an excuse to do so.
It isn't about one journey though is it - it's about us collectively. I think that one of the points of the 'don't make unnecessary journeys' was to avoid the danger of breakdowns/accidents and necessity of assistance and therefore endangering others. I'm not sure you're getting the grasp of the importance of 'collective responsibility' which is the point made by the senior scientific advisor I linked to yesterday. That's the whole point of that.
However, as I've said repeatedly, that journey up North isn't the problem many have issues with. It's the journey to the castle, the blatant lie behind it, and the blatant lies from the Government in the press conference last Friday ("he stayed at the farm for 2 weeks and made no journeys").
Lynching???
Rather extreme terminology don't you think?
What more than 70% of the british public want is integrity which they most certainly haven't seen
If as you say there may be people looking for an excuse to use their interpretation of the rules he sure as hell has provided one
I'm not sure the journey he was the problem for me. It was the fact he thought he and his wife had covid that potential could have endangered others plus the 30 mile trip to test his eyesight was a blatant lie.
For me it's a trust issue. I'm ok with him breaking the lock down rules, each to there own. but he has to face conciseness if caught. He got caught so he should step down.
Tbh I'm surprised that the police have not asked him why he thought it was appropriate to drive when he thought his vision was impaired and unsure if his vision was adequate to endure a long journey.