-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Enforcement of the new rules on social distancing, unnecessary journeys etc.
- Thread starter AM9
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
bramling
Veteran Member
I know one who’s doing it (and *really shouldn’t* as he’s supposed to be shielding). However from the few shop experiences I’ve had I do get the feeling there are some doing just that. Just a hunch based on overhearing comments.
Meant to quote this above
trainophile
Established Member
Thanks. It didn't come up on a cursory google search, but perhaps I used the wrong type of query. How easy is it for the general lay person to find unless someone links to it for them?
Yes, it is illegal in England to leave home without a reasonable excuse. Regulation 6 (1) of S.I. 2020/350 refers.
Last edited:
I would beg to suggest that the “general lay person” should simply be following the instructions at https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus, which are easy to find, well-signposted, and clear. It is not a precise transposition of the regulations, because the “general lay person” does not need one.
87electric
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,027
Wrong.
I believe it is you who are wrong, but no doubt you would be more than willing to expound upon what “gotcha” you are using on this occasion.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
In what way is it wrong?
much of our law is defined in court by precedent.
’reasonable’ is also a common legal term and judges are frequently needing to decide if something is ‘reasonable’.
The law says ‘without reasonable excuse’. Government guidance then sets out what they believe is reasonable, and the guidance is more widely seen and quoted than the actual law.
A judge could decide that the guidance isn’t a good definition of ’reasonable’, but I certainly wouldn't bet a big legal fee on expecting one to do so.
The judge would also take into account the intention of the law, and as that is clearly to restrict travel and contact as much as possible......
The fact you state that although unecessary it is not illegal gives mixed messages.
Different circumstances but I think this makes the point.
Look at the case on this thread where the person was fined for driving out 40miles to get a breath of fresh air and reset his mind. If that person read that there was little risk to health by doing so they might think it is ok to take the drive out and end up breaking the law. Whether the person involved had read/heard it was not a major risk to spreading virus or not we don't know but inadvertently they or others may have thought it to be fine if they had.
In your example by suggesting getting on a train and cycling home is within the law may mean that someone may decide to do so. So please stop suggesting that going against guidelines is within the law and possibly encouraging others to do so.
Not quite.
The law does indeed say “without reasonable excuse”. The law then goes on to list a series of activities (from memory only, thirteen) which will automatically be considered reasonable excuses. The list is in law rather than in government guidance.
The door remains open for a court to infer additional reasonable reasons, presumably where a person prosecuted wishes to raise one as a defence.
(The above post relates to England.)
As this is yet another apochryphal tale, I suspect that your questioning the context here is bang on. Whilst many here are quite adamant that those who fail the 'attitude test' when challenged by an RPO or guard on a train can expect to get less than a sympathetic response, that doesn't apply to the police, who in far more serious instances, are expected to take lectures from (mobile) barrack room lawyers with excuses that would be laughable in a more formal setting, e.g. a police station.
All this talk about what the law actually says in it's words is child's stuff. English law has always relied on the concept of reasonableness, which is not some random matter of opinion, and if this case came to court because the 'poor victims of police overzealous action' felt that their slap on the wrist was totally out of order, the test of reasonable would be applied in the court. The letter of the law in this case applies with respect to the guidelines and clarifications made by more than one minister of state since its introduction, and I doubt that a half resonable prosecutor would have much trouble demonstrating that the behaviour certainly wasn't reasonable in the context of the whole issue of travel, exercise and visiting friends/relatives that the Government has needed to hurriedly define. This is not another Dangerous Dogs Act faux par.
Interestingly, of the few hundred fines issued, not one of these self-entitled citizens has the courage to actually appeal against the fine despite it being a matter of the people against the bully boys in the police. That's the problem with all of these "I heard today of someone ..." events reported third hand with little factual evidence to verify if indeed anything happened at all.
trainophile
Established Member
Why would my friend (a middle aged respectable lady) make the story up? And for clarification, her son paid up immediately without any attitude, took his wife home and then returned alone to deliver the medication. It was only when she told us about it that it turned into a discussion as to whether it was a lawful fine.
I see Ms Patel tweeted today, wishing a happy Vaisakhi to everyone, resulting in a large number of "what happened to Happy Easter?" comments. She had time for that but apparently no time to clarify points of law to her electorate.
I see Ms Patel tweeted today, wishing a happy Vaisakhi to everyone, resulting in a large number of "what happened to Happy Easter?" comments. She had time for that but apparently no time to clarify points of law to her electorate.
I can't comment on how respectable this woman was or even if she was a lady, but that has no relevance to this discussion.
You seem to have missed the point of my post. The 'reasonable test' is there to avoid every act of law having to define unambiguously every possible situation. Anybody is free to challenge an interpretation of a law in court. In some of the ludicrous arguments being presented over the emergency legislation to protect us from a potentially fatal disease, there are probably plenty of champions of the citizen's rights willing to fund and support a challenge to the law, but strangely enough, they seem to be sitting on their hands. Maybe because they know they would lose.
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
I can't comment on how respectable this womad was or even if she was a lady, but that has no relevance to this discussion.
You seem to have missed the point of my post. The 'reasonable test' is there to avoid every act of law having to define unambiguously every possible situation. Anybody is free to challenge an interpretation of a law in court. In some of the ludicrous arguments being presented over the emergency legislation to protect us from a potentially fatal disease, there are probably plenty of champions of the citizen's rights willing to fund and support a challenge to the law, but strangely enough, they seem to be sitting on their hands. Maybe because they know they would lose.
Agreed. Thusfar there don't seem to be many reports of police brutality. The only one which to me had some degree of credibility was the one about people using their front garden.
I really wouldn't want to be a police officer right now, this idea that it's somehow the time for them to be going round throwing weight around is, in my experience, completely wide of the mark.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,150
Devon and Cornwall Police have received a lot of publicity for the stance they've taken on car travel, particularly on visitors/second homers travelling long distances, but also locals frequenting beaches and beauty spots. They are my local force. My wife and I have an elderly dog, we have no garden or even a yard, as we live in a flat over a shop in the centre of town. Every morning I take the dog to a local public garden where he's allowed to walk, on a lead. The garden is probably about five or six hundred yards from my flat. Due to my M.S. I have to walk with a stick and, owing both to that and nerve loss in my inner ear that occurred thirty odd years ago, I can only stagger and am liable to fall, although it hasn't happened too often so far. The last time it happened outside the house was when I was walking the dog, my leg went into spasm, and I fell into some ironwork, which bruised and hurt but I didn't break anything. Since then, I've taken my dog in the car (he has a wooden ramp to get into the back) and, thanks to my blue badge, I can park if space is available. I've continued to do this and, as it happens, about three days after the restrictions became law a PC and PCSO walked past as I got my dog down the ramp at the gardens. They weren't going to query anything, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to confirm what I was doing and why and elicit a response, as I intended to carry on doing this. They said that, as far as they were concerned, it was quite permissible, they knew where I lived (!) and I should have no fears on continuing, unless the restrictions became more draconian.I have since seen a statement from the Association of Chief Police Officers that they've agreed that a short drive of a mile or so to have your exercise is something that is sanctioned by all forces, regardless of disability.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
My cousin drove the distance to a known beauty spot in Sussex and was very honest to the policeman who apparently, was waiting for him and taking down his car details. Obviously I wasn't there to hear the conversation but knowing him, telling the policeman that he is autistic certainly wouldn't be the first thing to say, given the situation. But he did tell me that he went for exercise and a "reset" and I asked him if he told this to the policeman to which he said that he often went there for exercise and he was about to return home.
Personally I would have hoped the officer would have used some discretion and just told him to not do it again
Personally I would have hoped the officer would have used some discretion and just told him to not do it again
I wonder how many might try the 'I'm autistic and I need a reset' as an excuse for an 'unreasonable' trip to exercise. If it was that easy, it might be a valueless reason for those who are telling the truth.
bramling
Veteran Member
This is the problem. Give an inch and miles will be taken. Many people will have a reason that, in their opinion, gives them the right for special treatment. I’ve already seen some people trying it on in supermarket queues.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
That is a very unfair and obtuse comment
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
In my experience, autistic people are very honest and trying it on for special treatment isn't on their radar.
Either you have no understanding of autism or you are stereotyping and tarring them all with the same brush
bramling
Veteran Member
My comment wasn't aimed at any particular group, autistic or otherwise.
As I say, many people will have a reason they feel gives them cause to be an exception. Once too many people start doing it, things break down.
Pretty much everyone is finding aspects of the current situation difficult, for one reason or another. It really does seem to be the case that the more people follow the guidance, the shorter the situation lasts.
I could have fancied a reset by going further afield over the weekend after having been at work for 7 days, however I thought better of it. Whichever way one looks at it, there's simply no need to be travelling many miles for exercise.
In the general public you get one or two who behave idiotically. Same with the police. Most are probably Ok like the ones you mentioned then you get the ones who get a bit excited and want to set up roadblocks, fly drones, tweet rubbish etc. Make the whole force look like muppets.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Why not?
So please direct me to the legislation that stipulates how many miles one can drive for exercise
He was the only one in the car. He could have lied to the officer but that's not his style. Clearly, honesty doesn't pay
No, it's an unfortunate characteristic of some parts of society. Once it becomes known that somebody who has a characteristic that the police have (or are prepared to) adopt a degree of flexibility, there will be others prepared to lie in order to get their way. That is no criticism of anybody who might be given some leeway, (autistic persons, - there are plenty of others who might qualify with a genuine issue); it is a sad fact of life that others will act in a way that nullifies any leeway given to those in need.
scotrail158713
Established Member
Spot on. It’s a sad state of affairs to be in, but it’s where we’ve come to as a society.
There is nothing other than the guideline of locally, which has been stated as a 5 minute drive.
bramling
Veteran Member
There’s plenty of reasons why not. Once many people start doing it then it will risk transmitting the disease, as well as potentially getting in the way of those using roads to carry out essential tasks. This is the problem - lots of people want to drive to beauty spots at the moment, and quite simply they can’t.
I don’t think it is specifically in the legislation, although I’m not sure anyone could argue that many miles constitutes a reasonable excuse to be out of home. I honestly can’t see why people want to be so awkward over this, it’s a pretty reasonable request for people to comply with.
No one needs to be travelling miles to exercise. The guidelines provide for *exercise*, not taking in the atmosphere at a beauty spot. Even somewhere like London it’s quite possible to find quiet thoroughfares where it’s possible to exercise and maintain distance, without even needing to access somewhere like a park. There are reasons why in some cases it might be preferable to access countryside in order to provide more space, but it doesn’t alter the physical nature of exercise whether someone’s in an urban or rural environment. This country simply doesn’t have the space for millions of people to all access countryside at the same time, which is what would happen if there was the total freedom to go wherever we want at this time - especially with the current run of fine weather. We all saw the scenes of beaches and national parks three weekends ago, and that’s what would be happening if there wasn’t such a hard line being taken. It really is for everyone’s good.
- Status