The rules were somewhat ambiguous, which allowed him to break them (on the "childcare exception").

But his account of his actions is so untruthful. It is obvious to most that being on a remote farm would be a nicer environment to isolate than a house in central London. This simply _must_ have been a factor in his decision. He did not even contemplate seeking childcare support at home, he stated this himself in his press conference, it hadn't even crossed his mind.

His trip was not safe, and should have been used as a last resort. Is that the impression you got? That he had exhausted all other options?

If you had, then I would say you are even more political motivated than those you are saying are looking to give him the "boot".

His point was incoherent though.

He claimed he put his child and covid-19 positive wife in a car and drove 250 miles to get child care. But he had childcare available to him locally, and he didn't make use of the childcare when he got to Durham.

He then claimed that he didn't know if it was safe for him to drive or not (his wife can drive, why didn't she?) so he put them all in the car and drove to Barnard Castle.

He's trying to make use of the safeguarding exemption in the law to say he fled London because his family was at risk. But that would only cover the travel from London to Durham. It doesn't cover the travel from Durham back to this risky dangerous home in London.