Hancock trying to defend the indefensible.
He said it was sensible to limit such meetings to public places rather than private gardens, because the latter could require people to walk through one another’s houses, which was less safe.
Instead of spreading people across thousands, millions, of gardens in each of which they can avoid proximity, concentrate them all into the limited park spaces.
For me, people can easily access the garden, front or back, without coming through the house. But to get to the nearest proper park-like location, I need to walk for half an hour, and probably pass quite a few people out on their exercise walks, runs, cycles. The car park at the park is closed with a chain to stop anyone parking there.
Of course, not everyone has such easy access to their gardens, indeed, far from everyone has a balcony let alone a garden. But to use "could" as a reason is nonsense. We are told to use common sense then get assaulted by this abrogation of all sense.
