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

[scotrail158713]

At what point did I say, anyone was my cousin?!

Apologies - I’ve read back a few posts and it’s not your cousin. You were replying to someone who’d quoted the initial post - which references a cousin - however it wasn’t your post and I’d mistaken it as yours.

 

[111-111-1]

I fully understand the principle of the guidance but it is just that - guidance. I'm personally following it but that is the individual's choice and there's nothing compelling them to, unlike the less strict law itself.

I am a transport worker. My choice is to travel to work by train if possible then work on the trains. The more people travelling the more chance of this virus being transmitted. Anyone who argues that because it is only guidance not the law is putting myself and my colleagues at greater risk as well as those in other proffessions who need to use public transport at greater risk even if they stick to the guidelines themself.

I am not bitter that I need to keep working. When I was younger I had the advantage that had we had conscription to the armed forces I would not have been forced to go to war, now I have to accept I am in the firing line.

 

[bramling]

I am a transport worker. My choice is to travel to work by train if possible then work on the trains. The more people travelling the more chance of this virus being transmitted. Anyone who argues that because it is only guidance not the law is putting myself and my colleagues at greater risk as well as those in other proffessions who need to use public transport at greater risk even if they stick to the guidelines themself.

I am not bitter that I need to keep working. When I was younger I had the advantage that had we had conscription to the armed forces I would not have been forced to go to war, now I have to accept I am in the firing line.

Yes I think this post sums things up perfectly. Everyone is happy to do their bit to keep things moving, but by the same token there’s an expectation for everyone else to do their bit and contribute to making it as safe and easy for people to work - which includes travelling to and from work as well. I don’t think that’s too much to ask at all.

A lot of people are at work against their better judgement at this moment, either out of concern for their own health or that of loved ones with whom they live. It’s fair to say most really do want to do their bit and stay at work if they can as everyone knows the consequences if people start jacking it in (as they very easily can). *Everyone* needs to do their bit to help things tick over, and staying home where possible and minimising travel is the least some can do.

 

[FQ]

I am a transport worker. My choice is to travel to work by train if possible then work on the trains. The more people travelling the more chance of this virus being transmitted. Anyone who argues that because it is only guidance not the law is putting myself and my colleagues at greater risk as well as those in other proffessions who need to use public transport at greater risk even if they stick to the guidelines themself.

I am not bitter that I need to keep working. When I was younger I had the advantage that had we had conscription to the armed forces I would not have been forced to go to war, now I have to accept I am in the firing line.

I'm also a key worker who has no choice in whether they work or not (I'd choose to anyway) but I fully accept that people are fully within their rights to go up to what the law allows. Public transport of all kinds is virtually empty right now anyway so I don't think that someone going out from his home in Newcastle, catching the train to Hexham and cycling back is much of a problem.

 

[Greybeard33]

Going into relatives' houses is not allowed. Or standing closer than two metres to them. Nothing prohibiting having a chat through a window or in a large front garden.

Leaving home without a reasonable excuse is illegal. In this case the husband had a reasonable excuse - delivering medication to his mother in law. The wife did not have a reasonable excuse for accompanying him. Wanting a chat with her mother is not a reasonable excuse - that can be done from home by phone or video call.

 

[scotrail158713]

Leaving home without a reasonable excuse is illegal.

Is it? Or is it just not advised/recommended?

 

[Ianno87]

I'm also a key worker who has no choice in whether they work or not (I'd choose to anyway) but I fully accept that people are fully within their rights to go up to what the law allows. Public transport of all kinds is virtually empty right now anyway so I don't think that someone going out from his home in Newcastle, catching the train to Hexham and cycling back is much of a problem.

It wouldn't be a big deal if only one or two people do it....it's when everybody is doing it that it becomes a problem.

 

[trainophile]

Leaving home without a reasonable excuse is illegal. In this case the husband had a reasonable excuse - delivering medication to his mother in law. The wife did not have a reasonable excuse for accompanying him. Wanting a chat with her mother is not a reasonable excuse - that can be done from home by phone or video call.

If the couple had been in a car and were taking food (that they bought en route) as well as medication would that have been okay?

The actual law does need clarifying on this, lots of people will be getting out as it isn't clearly stated anywhere what travel is permitted. I have not seen anywhere that two people from the same household are not allowed to travel together, for whatever reason.

 

[bramling]

I'm also a key worker who has no choice in whether they work or not (I'd choose to anyway) but I fully accept that people are fully within their rights to go up to what the law allows. Public transport of all kinds is virtually empty right now anyway so I don't think that someone going out from his home in Newcastle, catching the train to Hexham and cycling back is much of a problem.

Yes it really is a problem. In isolation perhaps not (although it’s still an opportunity to spread via surfaces), but the problem comes that you can guarantee others will be having the same idea. All of a sudden the empty train isn’t quite so empty any more.

Please can people stop trying to find loopholes and justification for why *their* leisure trip is more justifiable than anyone else’s. We know the law as it’s written could be better - it’s a function of being rushed and perhaps of our liberal country which we should all be thankful for. There really is no reason for people to be seeking to test the boundaries at this moment in time.

 

[bramling]

It wouldn't be a big deal if only one or two people do it....it's when everybody is doing it that it becomes a problem.

That is unfortunately the problem. In a country where population density is high you can guarantee that someone else will be having the same idea - especially when many people aren’t currently constrained by things like work. All of a sudden this will lead to busy trains, crowded car parks, queues for shops and traffic jams - exactly the opposite of what we need at the moment.

This situation can’t be easy for the police either, we should support them and give them some slack. Whilst everyone else is being told to keep away from people, they are having to approach people often in a conflict situation.

 

[Mojo]

Is it? Or is it just not advised/recommended?

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, states that "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse." It then goes on to say that "a reasonable excuse includes the need..." This to me, implies that this is not a complete list, but I have copied it below.

(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(1), 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.

 

[111-111-1]

I'm also a key worker who has no choice in whether they work or not (I'd choose to anyway) but I fully accept that people are fully within their rights to go up to what the law allows. Public transport of all kinds is virtually empty right now anyway so I don't think that someone going out from his home in Newcastle, catching the train to Hexham and cycling back is much of a problem.

I don't know what you do, nor is it my business to do so. I would have thought that a bit of respect for other key workers safety would be given, not making excuses or saying something totally unecessary like your example above is ok, would be more appropiate.

If someones normal daily or weekly cycle ride is about 20 miles it is reasonable for them to cycle about 20 miles but there is no need whatsoever for them to get on a train, however few others are on it, and put other passengers and staff at a greater risk.

 

[Meerkat]

I fully understand the principle of the guidance but it is just that - guidance. I'm personally following it but that is the individual's choice and there's nothing compelling them to, unlike the less strict law itself.

The guidance would be used in a court to help define ”reasonable” which is in the law.

Going into relatives' houses is not allowed. Or standing closer than two metres to them. Nothing prohibiting having a chat through a window or in a large front garden.

Yes there is - it isn’t a reasonable excuse to leave your property.

If the couple had been in a car and were taking food (that they bought en route) as well as medication would that have been okay?

The actual law does need clarifying on this, lots of people will be getting out as it isn't clearly stated anywhere what travel is permitted. I have not seen anywhere that two people from the same household are not allowed to travel together, for whatever reason.

The law does clarify it as the law applies to individuals. If there are two individuals making a journey that only requires one of them then the non-driver has no reasonable excuse to be there (assuming the driver is not the sole carer).

 

[Enthusiast]

Is it? Or is it just not advised/recommended?

No, it is illegal. Section 6 of the Regulations:

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

There then follows a non-exhaustive list of "reasonable excuses."

The actual law does need clarifying on this, lots of people will be getting out as it isn't clearly stated anywhere what travel is permitted. I have not seen anywhere that two people from the same household are not allowed to travel together, for whatever reason.

The law is quite clear. You must not leave home without a reasonable excuse. A list of examples of the most common reasonable excuses is provided but it cannot cover all eventualities. If a police officer (or other "authorised person") believes you are outside your home without a reasonable excuse then a fixed penalty notice may be issued. If the recipient disagrees with the officer's belief that he was out and about without a reasonable excuse he can decline to pay the Fixed Penalty and have the matter heard in court. Then Magistrates (or a District Judge) will decide whether the excuse was reasonable or not.

 

[404250]

With corner shops/newsagents open is it allowed for people to get a newspaper and pint of milk or Twix each day?

 

[Ianno87]

With corner shops/newsagents open is it allowed for people to get a newspaper and pint of milk or Twix each day?

Subjective, but only the milk is arguably "essential" - but no harming picking up the other two whilst you're there.

 

[scotrail158713]

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, states that "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse." It then goes on to say that "a reasonable excuse includes the need..." This to me, implies that this is not a complete list, but I have copied it below.

No, it is illegal. Section 6 of the Regulations:

Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t realise it had been put into law.

 

[404250]

My point really is you wouldn't need a pint each day, you could get a larger amount of milk to last a week, and that could be part of a weekly big food shop. So any visit to a newsagent can't be called essential.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm also a key worker who has no choice in whether they work or not (I'd choose to anyway) but I fully accept that people are fully within their rights to go up to what the law allows. Public transport of all kinds is virtually empty right now anyway so I don't think that someone going out from his home in Newcastle, catching the train to Hexham and cycling back is much of a problem.

I would quite like to do this but I don't think it would be in the spirit of the regulations to do so even if it didn't break the law and therefore am not doing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My point really is you wouldn't need a pint each day, you could get a larger amount of milk to last a week, and that could be part of a weekly big food shop. So any visit to a newsagent can't be called essential.

What most people don't seem to realise is that you can freeze milk.

 

[FQ]

I don't know what you do, nor is it my business to do so. I would have thought that a bit of respect for other key workers safety would be given, not making excuses or saying something totally unecessary like your example above is ok, would be more appropiate.

If someones normal daily or weekly cycle ride is about 20 miles it is reasonable for them to cycle about 20 miles but there is no need whatsoever for them to get on a train, however few others are on it, and put other passengers and staff at a greater risk.

I fully agree that it's unnecessary and shouldn't be done (because the government guidance makes sense and should be followed for everyone's safety) but people saying it's against the law are wrong - that's my main point. Legality wise it is ok as you're leaving your house for exercise purposes and beyond that point you're in the clear effectively.

The guidance would be used in a court to help define ”reasonable” which is in the law.

It should never get to the point of needing defining in court given the reason the person would be out is for exercise. If it was something not on the list of 'reasonable excuses' then it would be up for interpretation but cycling somewhere then hopping on the train for a couple of stops and cycling back from another location is legal, whether it should be or not.

Just going to stress again that this is just the legal standpoint and that government advice should be followed but people should not be looked down upon for just following the law and not the advice.

 

[404250]

Seems to me that if a shop is open then you can use it legally to buy anything, and can drive to it if necessary. Nothing to stop people having multiple trips out a day to different shops such as supermarket, hardware store, bike shop, pharmacy, newsagent, takeaway. On top of these trips they can have their daily exercise. That's a lot of time out of the home and could be many miles travelled and interactions with lots of people. Maybe there should be laws to prevent this.

 

[404250]

Another issue is car and motorbike enthusiasts making use of the quiet roads to drive for pleasure rather than necessity. Several reports of motorcycle crashes and deaths in local news in last few days.

 

[111-111-1]

Seems to me that if a shop is open then you can use it legally to buy anything, and can drive to it if necessary. Nothing to stop people having multiple trips out a day to different shops such as supermarket, hardware store, bike shop, pharmacy, newsagent, takeaway. On top of these trips they can have their daily exercise. That's a lot of time out of the home and could be many miles travelled and interactions with lots of people. Maybe there should be laws to prevent this.

Unfortunately very strict laws may be the end result if people cannot be sensible and keep outings to as infrequently as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another issue is car and motorbike enthusiasts making use of the quiet roads to drive for pleasure rather than necessity. Several reports of motorcycle crashes and deaths in local news in last few days.

That is already not legal because "I'm just going for a drive" is not on the list.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seems to me that if a shop is open then you can use it legally to buy anything, and can drive to it if necessary. Nothing to stop people having multiple trips out a day to different shops such as supermarket, hardware store, bike shop, pharmacy, newsagent, takeaway. On top of these trips they can have their daily exercise. That's a lot of time out of the home and could be many miles travelled and interactions with lots of people. Maybe there should be laws to prevent this.

There may be nothing to stop this, but do you have evidence that a significant number of people are actually doing it? I can't see any myself.

 

[trainophile]

No, it is illegal. Section 6 of the Regulations:

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

There then follows a non-exhaustive list of "reasonable excuses."


The law is quite clear. You must not leave home without a reasonable excuse. A list of examples of the most common reasonable excuses is provided but it cannot cover all eventualities. If a police officer (or other "authorised person") believes you are outside your home without a reasonable excuse then a fixed penalty notice may be issued. If the recipient disagrees with the officer's belief that he was out and about without a reasonable excuse he can decline to pay the Fixed Penalty and have the matter heard in court. Then Magistrates (or a District Judge) will decide whether the excuse was reasonable or not.

Is there a link to these regulations?

 

[krus_aragon]

Because in many cases it makes logical sense for more than one person to be in a car. There may be times where non drivers in key jobs need lifts to and from work due to reduced public transport (and when such a lift is given by a household member the risk of infection is probably reduced compared to travelling by public transport), people requiring non Covid related medical treatment may not be in a state to drive themselves, or even in some cases it may be that the only driver in a household is not able to shop independently (either through physical disability or mental health reasons) but is capable of waiting in the car park while a family member shops (the use of the car enabling a substantially larger amount of groceries to be purchased and reducing the frequency that shopping needs to be obtained).

I can give one example myself from last week, when I had four people in my car. My driving-licenseless wife needed to go to a scheduled hospital appointment, and our kids are too young to be left home alone, so they came too. I'd planned to take them for a walk while Mum was at her appointment, but the youngest fell asleep on the drive over, (and the eldest was a bit sicky) so we went for a circular drive for half an hour before coming back to collect.

 

[krus_aragon]

Is there a link to these regulations?

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made
(It's the from Statutory Instrument relevant to England)

 

[Hadders]

With corner shops/newsagents open is it allowed for people to get a newspaper and pint of milk or Twix each day?

Given that newspapers are published daily it's perfectly ok to visit a newsagent to purchase one.