Enforcement of the new rules on social distancing, unnecessary journeys etc.

[Tetchytyke]

Ch Con Peter Goodman said the emergency laws were unclear

The laws were not unclear, the Chief Constable just couldn't be bothered to read them.

Again, people wonder why I'm nervous when police choose to "misinterpret" some of the most basic legislation on the statute books

 

[Meerkat]

The laws were not unclear, the Chief Constable just couldn't be bothered to read them.

Again, people wonder why I'm nervous when police choose to "misinterpret" some of the most basic legislation on the statute books

The law is unclear - you shouldn’t leave your house unless it is essential, without defining essential.
Saying you allowed out for exercise is still covered by needing to be essential. I would argue that driving to exercise is not essential for the vast majority as there is safe outdoors right outside their front door.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

The law is unclear - you shouldn’t leave your house unless it is essential, without defining essential.
Saying you allowed out for exercise is still covered by needing to be essential. I would argue that driving to exercise is not essential for the vast majority as there is safe outdoors right outside their front door.

And I would argue that if one lives in a built-up, densly populated area with no local outdoor space, driving to a more remote location within reasonable distance for exercise is essential

 

[baz962]

A fine maybe, but the 6 months in jail is pushing it too far.

I did ask before how the police can realistically enforce all this . If you get stopped it's easy to use the reason's allowed.
I personally haven't stepped outside my house once since last Wednesday and wouldn't try and get around the rules .
However if people were being irresponsible , I personally think that a deterrent like six months inside is a good idea. A small financial penalty , although a great deal to some , isn't much to many others. Only the other day , a premier league footballer crashed their expensive motor on the way from a party. Probably wipes his behind with more notes than the penalty charge.

 

[Meerkat]

And I would argue that if one lives in a built-up, densly populated area with no local outdoor space, driving to a more remote location within reasonable distance for exercise is essential

A place without outdoor space? Is that even possible?
Exercise is essential, doing it in a pretty place is preferable, not essential.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The law is unclear - you shouldn’t leave your house unless it is essential, without defining essential.

The law doesn't mention whether a journey is essential, it says you must not leave your property without "reasonable excuse". It then gives examples of reasonable excuse. You will note the word "including", which means the list is not exhaustive.

(There is 200 years of case law about what is "reasonable", so that is defined elsewhere).

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—
(i)a member of the person’s household,
(ii)a close family member, or
(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—
(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);
(ii)social services;
(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless

The legislation is surprisingly clear and concise. There is no ambiguity. If a Chief Constable cannot understand this legislation then, quite frankly, he is not fit to be in the role.

 

[Ianno87]

And I would argue that if one lives in a built-up, densly populated area with no local outdoor space, driving to a more remote location within reasonable distance for exercise is essential

The street outside your door is 'outside space'.

 

[Bantamzen]

I did ask before how the police can realistically enforce all this . If you get stopped it's easy to use the reason's allowed.
I personally haven't stepped outside my house once since last Wednesday and wouldn't try and get around the rules .
However if people were being irresponsible , I personally think that a deterrent like six months inside is a good idea. A small financial penalty , although a great deal to some , isn't much to many others. Only the other day , a premier league footballer crashed their expensive motor on the way from a party. Probably wipes his behind with more notes than the penalty charge.

Its only a deterrent if you actually enforce it, and if you enforce it you open it up to legal challenge. I strongly suspect that the State(s) in Australia that have brought this into effect are crossing fingers that they don't actually have to use it. 6 months for sitting on a park bench? Imagine if we read about that happening in some third world country, or banana republic?

As some others on here have articulated, we should not be going for such draconian measures, because in the long run they will come back to bite us. People are way too eager to write away their rights, some seem to be even enjoying it. The overwhelming majority are following the guidelines, and with a bit of luck we should start to see the spread slow sooner rather than later.

 

[ainsworth74]

Plus you're tying up more police resources, more court time (because they're famously carrying excess capacity!), exposing more people to potential infection (we're talking about releasing some low level offenders remember to try and control it in prisons), etc etc. I'm not convinced that sending someone to prison is actually productive. Now, if you do want to get harsher (and I'm not wholly convinced but) perhaps electronic tagging makes more sense. You can't go more than x from your home, you can only go for y minutes and only z times? After all the problem is someone ignoring the lockdown...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Imagine if we read about that happening in some third world country, or banana republic?

I'm Australian so I'm allowed to point out a good chunk of the country *is* a banana republic. You could count Scott Morrison's brain cells on the fingers of one hand. Don't even get me started on the politicians in Queensland and the NT!

I think the law as it is written- as opposed to what the police think is written- strikes the right balance. Guidance can be stronger as appropriate, but the law merely provides a minimum expectation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Now, if you do want to get harsher (and I'm not wholly convinced but) perhaps electronic tagging makes more sense.

It's what they are doing in Taiwan. They are using mobile phones to monitor people. Turning it off or leaving it at home is an offence. They will ring it at random times to check.

It absolutely terrifies me how some people want that here. The "emergency" legislation here can be extended at the whim of the Secretary of State. Scotland are suggesting they will ban jury trials and ban cross-examination of witnesses. It genuinely scares me how people are sleep-walking into this.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's what they are doing in Taiwan. They are using mobile phones to monitor people. Turning it off or leaving it at home is an offence. They will ring it at random times to check.

To be clear, for one I'm not convinced we need more stringent measures and for another if we were to go down that road it would absolutely have to be done by a court not just because some random official decided it should happen.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's what they are doing in Taiwan. They are using mobile phones to monitor people. Turning it off or leaving it at home is an offence. They will ring it at random times to check.

It absolutely terrifies me how some people want that here. The "emergency" legislation here can be extended at the whim of the Secretary of State. Scotland are suggesting they will ban jury trials and ban cross-examination of witnesses. It genuinely scares me how people are sleep-walking into this.

More people ought to be sitting up and taking notice. Even though Scotland have backed down (as per the separate thread), the very fact that these extensions of emergency laws are being tested beyond their limits is a very worrying development.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A place without outdoor space? Is that even possible?

The best example I can think of is people primarily in rural areas whose houses front onto 60mph roads with no pavement.

 

[Greybeard33]

Essentially, I can now only travel outside Altrincham and district to go to work, and then only because my job is deemed "essential".

The legislation makes no mention of "essential" work. You are permitted to travel without restriction for the purposes of work (whether "essential" or not), provided it is not "reasonably possible" for you to work from home.

Perhaps one potential solution would be to adopt the restrictions in Australia where you can still use a park to exercise in - but you can't lounge, nap, sunbathe, or just peacefully gaze at the trees as you might once have.

The English legislation does not list lounging, napping, sunbathing or tree gazing among the reasonable excuses for leaving home. That is not exercise.

 

[Darandio]

Glossop police are now putting these on cars.

Image reads:

'The Government restrictions currently in place due to coronavirus (COVID-19) DO NOT permit you to use your vehicle to travel to this location to exercise.

We have all been instructed to avoid all UNNECESSARY TRAVEL

You should not be driving to a location away from home to undertake your daily exercise.

You are entitled to exercise once a day.- This should be walking,running or cycling from your home address.

Please refrain from unnecessary travel until the restrictions placed upon us all have been lifted.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation'

 

[Bletchleyite]

Derbyshire are still at it despite the national advice?

Once the dust settles, they need to seriously consider changing their senior management.

 

[Domh245]

Whilst it is derbyshire constabulary (and would fit!) there are a few typesetting oddities on that which make me think that isn't entirely real

 

[Tetchytyke]

Derbyshire are still at it despite the national advice?

Of course they are. As I said further upthread, they've doubled down on their "advice" since Lord Sumption criticised them.

I don't even know where to start. As I said up thread, any senior police officer who can "misinterpret" the law so badly is not fit to be in their job.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course they are. As I said further upthread, they've doubled down on their "advice" since Lord Sumption criticised them.

I don't even know where to start. As I said up thread, any senior police officer who can "misinterpret" the law so badly is not fit to be in their job.

Of course it'd be fine if they were wording those differently, e.g. "The Government has asked that you exercise close to home - if you didn't need to drive here, please stop doing so for everyone's benefit".

The Police are perfectly entitled to advise on things that aren't the law - a good example in normal times is on things like properly securing your home and other crime prevention stuff.

 

[Bantamzen]

Derbyshire are still at it despite the national advice?

Once the dust settles, they need to seriously consider changing their senior management.

Perhaps they are worried they will be bored if people stay away from the tourist spots? North Yorkshire Police were really keen on setting up roadblocks to undertake random checks on people moving about, whereas in West Yorkshire (or at least my little corner of it) there's been no sight nor sound of them. Very different approaches from each region it seems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps they are worried they will be bored if people stay away from the tourist spots? North Yorkshire Police were really keen on setting up roadblocks to undertake random checks on people moving about, whereas in West Yorkshire (or at least my little corner of it) there's been no sight nor sound of them. Very different approaches from each region it seems.

It appears it's Lancashire who have been the really big ones - they have issued hundreds of fines, whereas most forces have issued none so far.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Of course it'd be fine if they were wording those differently

Indeed it would. "Please don't come here, #savelives, Government guidance says..." would be fine.

It is the continuing misrepresentation of what is extremely concise and simple legislation that really gets my back up. Either the police are misunderstanding a very simple piece of legislation, in which case they're unfit for their role, or they are deliberately overstating the law, in which case they're unfit for their role.

 

[Bantamzen]

It appears it's Lancashire who have been the really big ones - they have issued hundreds of fines, whereas most forces have issued none so far.

Well Lancashire is a pretty dull place so....

<backs slowly away>

 

[Darandio]

Whilst it is derbyshire constabulary (and would fit!) there are a few typesetting oddities on that which make me think that isn't entirely real

They posted it! https://www.facebook.com/GlossopdaleSNT/posts/2870439399710018

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well Lancashire is a pretty dull place so....

<backs slowly away>

Careful, you'll have the War of the Roses going again

 

[Bantamzen]

Careful, you'll have the War of the Roses going again

Well it might take people's minds off the current crisis for a bit....

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Indeed it would. "Please don't come here, #savelives, Government guidance says..." would be fine.

It is the continuing misrepresentation of what is extremely concise and simple legislation that really gets my back up. Either the police are misunderstanding a very simple piece of legislation, in which case they're unfit for their role, or they are deliberately overstating the law, in which case they're unfit for their role.

Could it be that, because crime has fallen dramatically due to most people being indoors, some police forces have too much time on their hands and therefore feel justified in harrassing innocent people going about their perfectly lawful activities?

 

[Domh245]

They posted it! https://www.facebook.com/GlossopdaleSNT/posts/2870439399710018

Oh dear

 

[C J Snarzell]

Derbyshire are still at it despite the national advice?

Once the dust settles, they need to seriously consider changing their senior management.

First one out of the door should be Rachel Swann their Deputy Chief Constable - she actually looks like Sonic the Hedgehog!

I was actually quite shocked when I saw her on the news last year during the Whalley Bridge dam disaster. I believe in diversity & how it should be expressed but there has to be a limit in standards of appearance for a senior police officer who should be representing the rank & file of a professional organisation.

CJ