This is a transcript of what he said about the eyesight thing:
"My wife was very worried, particularly given my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease. She didn't want to risk a nearly 300-mile drive with our child, given how ill I had been. We agreed that we should go for a short drive to see if I could drive safely. We drove for roughly half an hour and ended up on the outskirts of Barnard Castle town. We did not visit the castle. We did not walk around the town. We parked by a river. My wife and I discussed the situation. We agreed that I could drive safely, we should turn around, go home. I felt a bit sick. We walked about 10 to 15 metres from the car to the river bank nearby. We sat there for about 15 minutes. We had no interactions with anybody. I felt better. We returned the car. An elderly gentleman walking nearby appeared to recognise me. My wife wished him Happy Easter from a distance, but we had no other interaction."
I am surprised at the total outrage about this eye sight thing. When I heard him say it, AND reading the transcript, I think he was saying, I had been ill and wasn't sure I was up for the long drive to London. I thought I knew what he meant - it is monotonous and difficult to drive on a motorway when you aren't feeling very well. He would be driving for 4+ hours back to London so did need to see how he felt, and I think things like passing out etc. were also important.
I am all up for people having to take the hit when deserved but what I don't like is when people take things that are clearly ambiguous or open to interpretation and deliberately manipulating them for their own agenda. It is very disingenuous to take what he said and say that he "went for a drive to check his eyesight because he couldn't see" - from what he said, he equally could have meant that he went for a drive to see if he had the energy to do a long drive.
This type of disingenuity, the very thing that he is being accused of, doesn't do anyone who wants to bring him down any favours IMO. If you want to bring him down, fine, but do it on something that is actually substantive, not twisted and political, otherwise where is your integrity in all of this?