his immigration minister robert jenrick. the bell they have published so far does allow ministers to override some parts of the human rights act, but not completely ignored all european human rights laws, which was something that some mps on the right of the conservative party had been calling for. that has led to backlash from that wing of his party, including the former home secretary suella braverman, who has told the bbc this morning that this would leave the rwanda bill open to further legal challenges from potential asylum seekers and their representatives as well. so i think there will be a couple of key questions that rishi sunak will be facing in this press conference. firstly, there is the question hanging over him today of who on earth will he replace robertjenrick with? or can be the immigration minister at this time? i think this is a tricky question because robert jenrick was somebody who was a close ally of his, was supposed to be someone very loyal to rishi su
and develop and therefore avoid the need for a mandatory lockdown? its almost a mirror image of the conversation we were having earlier, coming into the weekend of the 13th of march, the government had not reacted quickly enough because the disease was further advanced than the government believed and we believe. there was no appetite to take it any further. of course, in theory it would have been possible to deliver the stay at home message is an advisory rather than mandatory message but there was some evidence emerging, again some other anecdotal, that having advised people to stay away from crowded indoor spaces like pubs and so on that they wouldn t. i don t know whether it was a focus group, i seem to remember one of the number ten team saying is what we re hearing that if you meant us to stay away from the pubs you would close the pubs. so it seemed necessary to impose mandatory lockdown given how quickly the disease was moving in order to minimise that risk. lard orde
suggesting that the legitimacy of the government had been eroded? in what way did you understand him to say it had been eroded? presumably it related to say it had been eroded? presumably it related to the say it had been eroded? presumably it related to the barnyard say it had been eroded? presumably it related to the barnyard castle - it related to the barnyard castle incident and the government response to it barnard castle. it incident and the government response to it barnard castle. to it barnard castle. it was havin: to it barnard castle. it was having an to it barnard castle. it was having an impact to it barnard castle. it was having an impact on - to it barnard castle. it was having an impact on the - to it barnard castle. it was having an impact on the 27th | to it barnard castle. it was i having an impact on the 27th of to it barnard castle. it was - having an impact on the 27th ofjune in relation to the government dealing with loca
lockdown inviting them to a bring your own booze party to which about 30 or a0 people turned up in the gardens in lockdown. that was breaching rules because of the time you are only allowed to meet with one other person from outside your household outside. even that day, government officials had been on television warning people that those were the rules. so it was seen very much as a real embarrassment at the very least to the government at the time, orwhen very least to the government at the time, or when it came out, rather, a year later. so they will be no doubt that will be talked about in question today in the inquiry. then we will be hearing from lee cain, the director of communications for the director of communications for the prime minister, and that is going to be significant also, because we have also had an indication of the private correspondence going on between lee cain and other senior officials during that time which gives you a bit of a glimpse of some of t