As Johnson blows public trust in the lockdown, Drakeford must now lead by example

If sunlight kills the virus why were very sunny countries like Italy, Spain and America so badly effected or do they have the wrong type of sun?

Drakeford and the Welsh Government backed by the Senedd must strengthen lockdown guidlines in Wales for at least next 3 week period. The justification for this would be the uncertainties introduced into the 4 Nations approach by the actions of Cummings but particularly by their endorsement by Johnsons’s failure to condemn him at the very least. Were leaders of the devolved administrations consulted on Johnsons’s decimation of the lockdown guidance? Drakeford should be bold and decisive:- Increase fine for non-essential travel Allow Police to impond vehicles Regulate border crossings from/into England Blitz advertising At least in Wales we should all be in it together.

Loose Sweden: deaths 3,998 and per M=396. Tight Finland : deaths 307 and per M= 55. Why do populists keep getting it wrong? From Bunter to Trump to Bolsonaro. Is it a malfunction in the brain?

The media have called for vaughan gething to resign for sitting on a park bench whilst his little boy eats some chips. A walk with his family is legal , a take away is legal ,a brief sit down? Ooh dear! Nothing to do with his race of course. As welsh we all know what prejudice is , do we have to indulge in it ourselves .? In comparison Mr Cummlngs actions look monstrous, their endorsement by the entire u.k. cabinet a sick joke.

The Welsh Conservatives must now "come out" and tell us what their position is regarding their REAL leader. And do the Welsh Conservatives support the Welsh Governments position...............or Boris Johnson's?

I think Theo Davies-Lewis may be Dusty Drakeford's only fanboy. While his loyalty is to the stinking union, Drakeford can do nothing for Cymru.

You do know that Sweden now has a 6% death rate compared to other countries. The borders surrounding Sweden aren’t open because of it. They let everyone out to mix and are now suffering because of it.

Sky News's distinctly doom-laden 'Covid' warnings, which regularly precede or succeed the adverts, assert that the virus is unaffected by both heat and cold.

So is it now possible to travel to Cornwall without any symptoms of covid 19 ( not like Dominic Cummings who broke 3 of his own rules ) , he travelled mot than 10 miles ,traveled while infected possibly infecting others and attending a birthday party and i bet they are all back now so add total lies about why he went at least twice without any fines or sacking. So if i now travel to Cornwall and am stopped by police can i say Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson said its ok .

As Philip says, we know what people are going to say to the police now. But, something else: The Welsh National Party and Plaid Cymru must begin preparing for a snap election! Anyone curiously cruising the newsnet will know the general feeling in England is one of hurt and real anger, after their faith in the government has been shown to be unfounded. Once again Plaid and WNP get your people ready, as an election is probably on its way. Get Ready!!!

So will all those photographers up Cumming's nose get punished for breaking the 2 mtr rule ??? For God's sake move on !!! The only reason we are being kept in lockdown here in Wales is because they have nothing much else in place.

Just makes you think, Boris been telling us the rules in the begining. But his side kick, gets off.

Drakeford done exactly the same protecting the health minister eating fish and chips

It's good to see Welsh roads empty today - it does appear that the Welsh Parliament's message -Stay at home- is being heeded. It remains toi be seen whether Johnson's haste to reopen will produce another wave of infections. I suspect it will as there is liitle testing in place so no one knows the full extent of the virus across the country. When it does hits it is vital we protect ourselves here in Cymru or all our common sense will be for nothing.

I know this is a little side-track, and is lost in the (justifiable) anger of a good many of the populace, but I’m surprised that it hasn’t been made more of by the legal fraternity. I trust Keir Starmer, being the former Head honcho at the CPS and a forensic lawyer will bring it up at the next PMQs One of the first things we learn on a Criminal Law course is that ‘motive’ is irrelevant to criminal law. Rather, a person’s conviction for a crime depends on them having mens rea (‘a guilty mind’) when the commit the actus reus ( ‘the guilty act’). Often, the mens rea is considered to be an intention (direct or indirect) to commit the crime in question. In murder as well as the act of killing someone unlawfully, you must also be shown, beyond all reasonable doubt, to – have intended to kill them OR – have intended to cause them really serious harm Now, it is the “deliberateness” of the thought that is important for the criminal law to operate – not motive, not instinct. So you can keep all your Agatha Christie theorisings that X killed Y because she wanted his money, at home. Her MOTIVE was to get rich quick; her INTENTION was to put cyanide in his port so he would die. The former is irrelevant. The latter is crucial. Similarly, when we learnt that Lord Haw Haw (the original one)’s motive was to make his treacherous broadcasts was to save his family from the Nazis, this was beside the point. He deliberately ( = intentionally) made such broadcasts, which were defined as treacherous. So he was culpable. Now, relate this to Cummings. His MOTIVE (so we are led to believe) in order to remove his family from London was to protect his child from Covid-19. In attempting to do so, he INTENTIONALLY (my emphasis) removed that child and his wife from London to the north of England, in clear breach of the Government’s and and his own drafted guidelines. That the Attorney-General of England and Wales can then claim that this is not a clear, deliberate breach of the relevant laws (Covid-19 Regulations) and he was acting with the best motives and best instincts of a father (pace the Prime Minister), beggars belief. Does the Attorney-General for England and Wales not understand the fundamental basics of Criminal Law – of distinguishing between MOTIVE and INTENTION? I board a plane at Heathrow and intend to blow it up over Glasgow. The plane is diverted to Bristol where the plane explodes. If I am still alive, I am still guilty of murder at Bristol because I maintained to the clear intention of blowing the plane up and killing others. (That is – indirect intention). If the plane continued to Glasgow and blew up there, my original plan would still be operational and I would be convicted of murder by direct intention there. In either case, if I had said that my belief/instinct/motive told me it was ok to blow up the plane because I was a persecuted Palestinian and that the ‘Jewish State’ was making life hell for my people back home in a Gaza; that is, if I was acting as I thought only a reasonable Palestinian so provoked would act – and strike back against ‘the West’ with my bomb on their plane – then going by Attorney-General’s logic (and Cummings’s sympathisers) this would be ok. I present you, Sir Keith Starmer, an open goal. Shoot, man, shoot!