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

Tetchytyke · 5 Apr 2020

Tom B said:
Very few people have usable gardens if they live in flats and, essentially, parks take their place for exercise.

Indeed. Many families in London don't have outside space, so of course they will be in the park for a while for their kids to play, and of course they will take a blanket to sit on and a drink whilst they do.

I have a big house and a big garden and I follow the rules, but I'm lucky that (a) makes (b) a million times easier.

RailUK Forums

corfield · 5 Apr 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Though in terms of consideration the hills may not be the place to be as Mountain Rescue service is going to be rather limited if it's available at all.

You seem to have a real thing for mountain rescue?

In decades of hill walking I’ve never seen them.

Just what proportion of hill walks need mountain rescue? 1%?? Less??

If we widen that to the countryside it’ll be a 1000th of a percent?

I just cannot see why this is a constraint.

Meerkat · 5 Apr 2020

scotrail158713 said:
She really has no excuse. How on earth is going to Fife ever “essential”?

She does have an excuse. Something about shutting down the house as she had been too busy to get there recently. The police obviously didn’t think it was a valid excuse.....

corfield said:
Oh come off it - the number of people “on the hills” is tiny, far smaller than normal. With literally miles of footpaths then people on them are much further apart than they are walking around town. Especially as you can always move well to the side to pass - which you can’t do on all but widest of pavements.

It’s smaller than normal BECAUSE people are following the spirit of the rules. If everyone thought like you they would be packed.
There are miles of paths but not many parking places.
It’s much easier to go wide on a pavement (there is a currently empty road next to it!). Hill paths can be restricted by mud, ditches, fencing, drops etc etc.

AlistairCowell · 5 Apr 2020

leightonbd said:
Since Parliament isn’t sitting, and doesn’t come back till 21 April, which seems an eternity away, I can’t help thinking Hancock (nicknamed ‘Handj*b’ in No 10, according to the S.Times today) is whistling in the dark a little.

Edit: he seems to have stepped back a bit from this position, based on reports of the afternoon press conference.

I really don't like to have an outdoor exercise ban, but Hancock said just earlier that "vast majority of people are following the rules".
Dr Harries had said that it is important to balance "physical and mental health needs".

trainophile · 5 Apr 2020

When the lockdown was first announced some people seemed to think it was a big novelty, a bit of fun even. Some even cheered (well online anyway). After two weeks I think even they are possibly now having second thoughts. It does get tedious once the appeal of having all day to do what you want, so long as it's in your own home, wears off. It's so alien to most of us, and will take many more weeks before we adapt properly to it.

jellybaby · 5 Apr 2020

leightonbd said:
Since Parliament isn’t sitting, and doesn’t come back till 21 April, which seems an eternity away, I can’t help thinking Hancock is whistling in the dark a little.

I'm not a constitutional law expert but I don't think a new SI under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 needs to go before Parliament before it comes into force, just within 28 days.

Meerkat · 5 Apr 2020

jellybaby said:
I'm not a constitutional law expert but I don't think a new SI under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 needs to go before Parliament before it comes into force, just within 28 days.

A Secretary of State can temporarily do pretty much what they like under the Civil Contingencies Act, and Starmer has already said he would support stricter restrictions if necessary.

DynamicSpirit · 5 Apr 2020

Puffing Devil said:
I'm started to get very annoyed with people trying to find loopholes or justifications for behaviour. Maybe there's little else to do other than play devils advocate or argue the toss.

If we want to control the spread it's pretty simple:

Stay inside your house/flat/caravan/tent.

Do not go out unless you need to

Food/medicine/essential work

Take a walk or cycle where you live - don't loiter.

I guess it depends on whether you prefer to take a legalistic 'you-must-exactly-follow-the-rules' approach or whether you prefer to be sensible and be willing to consider each trip on its merits. The advantage of 'follow-the-rules' is that it provides a simple framework, but the disadvantage is it gives no flexibility for special situations - and there are going to be situations where a journey is very important for some reason, but doesn't exactly fit within the rules. Any set of rules, no matter how well thought out, will inevitably have some degree of arbitrariness in it. For that reason, personally I'd prefer to use some common sense in those cases, and say, is a person taking reasonable precautions and is this justified in the circumstances, rather than a legalistic, 'does this follow a somewhat arbitrary set of rules?' approach. Of course, if you are using common sense, you do still need to guard against people deliberately pushing the boundaries for the sake of it.

Puffing Devil said:
If you're out, you can be spreading the virus. If you're in, you're not. How hard is it to do the right thing for everyone else?

And this perfectly illustrates the problem with arbitrary rules because this statement, made with that kind of binary simplicity, is almost certainly wrong (although I will grant that it's approximately true in many situations). As an example, someone who is out walking on a deserted moorland with no-one else anywhere nearby (within 100m or so) is almost certainly not going to be spreading the virus to any other human being. On the other hand, if you are in your apartment in a built up area, and your window is open, there is a probably very small chance that the virus could spread in the air to nearby apartments.

Also consider that someone who is outside exercising in the sun (or even just relaxing in the sun) is going to be to some extent boosting their immune system compared to someone who is staying at home - which makes it marginally less likely that, if they get the virus, they will have to be hospitalised. That's a long term thing - I doubt one single trip out would make much difference for most people, but it does illustrate that things are more complicated than your post, or the current rules, acknowledge.

Mag_seven · 5 Apr 2020

I don't think any further measures will help flatten the curve any more, but mass disregard of the current measures will definitely worsen it.

Dr Hoo · 5 Apr 2020

corfield said:
You seem to have a real thing for mountain rescue?

In decades of hill walking I’ve never seen them.

Just what proportion of hill walks need mountain rescue? 1%?? Less??

If we widen that to the countryside it’ll be a 1000th of a percent?

I just cannot see why this is a constraint.

I can only speak for the Peak District but during a typical (non-winter) weekend if I am out and about I will see the Edale Mountain Rescue vehicles on the roads on most occasions. They obviously deploy when significant numbers are expected. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is normal for several team members to have to meet up and share the same vehicle.

The Edale Mountain Rescue are very grateful that the hoards of ill-equipped visitors who drove out a fortnight ago have not come again.

Meanwhile the narrow aisles of the only village shop nearest to me are not packed with visitors from the Covid hotspot of Sheffield (and elsewhere) stripping the shelves of anything edible in the absence of pubs and cafes.

trainophile · 5 Apr 2020

We are all incredibly lucky to have been born after the unimaginable awfulness of the world wars, and I have counted my blessings for this many times. I guess this is where our luck ran out - but only to a very minor level of inconvenience on the scale of things. We can do this.

ChrisC · 5 Apr 2020

Mag_seven said:
So 95% of the people in these places should suffer because of the actions of 5% in those places. I don't believe punishing the majority because of the actions of a minority is the right thing to do. You will only end up alienating the 95% whose co-operation you need.

I too certainly would not want London and Brighton to be in complete lockdown as has been suggested here. That would cause so many to suffer because of the actions of a few. However, even that would be preferable to banning outdoor exercise throughout the country. I’m lucky living in a rural area and when I have been going for a walk over the fields near my house these last few weeks, I have seen no one else, as is usual even in normal times. How silly it would be if I, and others in similar rural areas, away from tourist locations, were not able to go out for a walk in solitude, as a result of the actions of a few who live in very different locations.

oldman · 5 Apr 2020

Meerkat said:
She does have an excuse. Something about shutting down the house as she had been too busy to get there recently. The police obviously didn’t think it was a valid excuse.....

She went there the previous weekend as well. So her first excuse was a lie. It is probably sensible not to sack her in the middle of a crisis, but afterwards ...

CaptainHaddock · 5 Apr 2020

Last Thursday I was stopped by a police officer asking why I was travelling and when I explained I was going to work he asked for some proof. Fortunately I'd a printed letter from my employer confirming my key worker status, but it does show that there's an awful lot of police officers about with very little to do so I suspect anyone travelling for non-essential purposes would soon get stopped.

111-111-1 · 5 Apr 2020

WM Bus said:
Aldi are enforcing it.
1 shopper per basket or you can't enter the store.
If you are with someone else who is helping carrying the goods home they have to wait in the car park.
Only reason you can come in together is if you are doing separate shopping with separate baskets and paying separately.

It would have been better if I had written "always enforcing it" as it was very quiet when I went out. It may have been a bit of common sense was being used. BTW Sainsbury & M&S were used.

Mag_seven · 5 Apr 2020

CaptainHaddock said:
Last Thursday I was stopped by a police officer asking why I was travelling and when I explained I was going to work he asked for some proof.

You don't need to prove anything - they must take your word for it.

111-111-1 · 5 Apr 2020

Tetchytyke said:
Why not? I think it's abundantly clear that the race of the woman in Newcastle played a huge part in what happened to her.

And we are talking about the police's attitude to enforcement, after all.

Shd has, but crucially she's not been given a FPN or prosecuted. Quelle surprise.

One rule for them...

Whilst the person involved was given a bad deal something must have happened for a PF issue to go so wrong, whether ethenticity had anything to do with it we will probably never know.

The police have a policy of engagement and not issuing fines unless the person does not take on board the COVID laws. In this case the person will probably have a bigger financial loss than any fine issued fairly soon when they get given their P45.

CM · 5 Apr 2020

111-111-1 said:
Whilst the person involved was given a bad deal something must have happened for a PF issue to go so wrong, whether ethenticity had anything to do with it we will probably never know.

The police have a policy of engagement and not issuing fines unless the person does not take on board the COVID laws. In this case the person will probably have a bigger financial loss than any fine issued fairly soon when they get given their P45.

And why would they be given their P45?

111-111-1 · 5 Apr 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I think we need another "Bojo at the table looking serious" address to the nation making it clear that if you're not moving you're not exercising, except a short rest standing up. Most people I think are just ignoring the Press Conferences now.

That said, such a ban may well have unintended consequences, such as people going shopping more often so they can walk to the supermarket and get exercise that way.

I think the Police and others also need to use some common sense, for instance stopping people exercising on their own in beauty spots is a bit silly, but it would be totally valid to go and give tickets to people sunbathing in groups because the latter is a clear infringement.

I also wonder if it would, though some families may not like it, be sensible to impose legal restrictions thus:-
- No children (I'd go with under 16 for this) may be in public without being accompanied by an adult (over 18), and that a £30 FPN will be imposed on the legal guardians of such children if the Police have to catch them and take them home
- No groups in public, even of family units, may include more than one adult (over 18), unless one of them is a carer for someone with a disability

Those would make enforcement easier because it would be easy for the Police to see, and take a single photograph in most cases easily proving, that an offence had been committed. Without compulsory identity it's impossible to check people don't live together, which is rather a challenge.

Bletchleyite said:
It does seem that there is a particular issue in London, where people are following their usual approach and heading for the parks, and not considering that it might for example make more sense to go and run round closed shopping areas or the City where there will be hardly anybody. I've been for a run around Bletchley, and here it appears that almost nobody is out except a few runners or dog walkers, and all are making the effort to skirt well more than 2m around people and giving each other a friendly wave, and the parks I went through are near-empty except the odd what looks like a family unit.

It is I'll admit a bit easier if you've got a garden (which Londoners don't) - but I mostly don't sit in mine, I actually prefer sitting in the house with all the windows open, which is not really much different to a flat.

That said 2 tracksuited "chavvy looking" young adult lads did just walk past my front window, but who am I to say they're not housemates or a gay couple?

Strange, you have continually made posts excusing those who stretch the rules but today you suggest clamping down on people.

Had it been a "chavvy looking" male and female would sexuality come into it?

farleigh · 5 Apr 2020

111-111-1 said:
Whilst the person involved was given a bad deal something must have happened for a PF issue to go so wrong, whether ethenticity had anything to do with it we will probably never know.

The police have a policy of engagement and not issuing fines unless the person does not take on board the COVID laws. In this case the person will probably have a bigger financial loss than any fine issued fairly soon when they get given their P45.

P45 for wrongful arrest. I wouldn't want to be the HR overseeing that one.

Tetchytyke · 5 Apr 2020

111-111-1 said:
when they get given their P45

Why would someone who has committed no criminal offence- all charges have been withdrawn
get a P45?

111-111-1 said:
whether ethenticity had anything to do with it we will probably never know.

Aye, a police force with a history of institutional racism goes all hardcore- illegally- against a black woman but we'll just never know why(!)

oldman said:
It is probably sensible not to sack her

I wouldn't want her sacked. I just want the law applied to her, so that means a £60 FPN.

farleigh · 5 Apr 2020

I don't think we can assume racism here - just incompetence of the police.

CaptainHaddock · 5 Apr 2020

Mag_seven said:
You don't need to prove anything - they must take your word for it.

True but the copper's manner did make me feel a tad intimidated and he seemed really disappointed when I was able to prove I had a legitimate reason for travelling.

111-111-1 · 5 Apr 2020

Sorry for being unclear I was referring to Catherine Calderwood getting her P45 costing more than any fine she was likely to recieve.

Although it is now reported that she has resigned.

farleigh · 5 Apr 2020

111-111-1 said:
Sorry for being unclear I was referring to Catherine Calderwood getting her P45 costing more than any fine she was likely to recieve.

Although it is now reported that she has resigned.

Ah - apologies. I thought you were referring to the person wrongfully arrested and charged.

Bletchleyite · 5 Apr 2020

111-111-1 said:
Strange, you have continually made posts excusing those who stretch the rules but today you suggest clamping down on people.

I'm suggesting that a small amount of tightening up may make enforcement easier. If enforcement fails they'll have little choice but to lock down completely.

Had it been a "chavvy looking" male and female would sexuality come into it?

I think you missed my point, which was that my first thought was "they're two mates who shouldn't have met up", then I thought of two entirely viable situations that could explain it being entirely legit.

If it was a male and a female I would indeed have assumed them to be a couple, because statistically it's much more likely that a male and female of similar appearance walking together are a heterosexual couple than two men or two women walking together are a gay couple/housemates, simply because that scenario is a minority situation compared with two males being friends who do not live together.

beardedbrit · 6 Apr 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I don't get why they don't say "maximum 1 hour out of the house for exercise" - it's enough for anyone and keeps it local.

And enforced exactly how ?? Mass issuing of ankle monitors perhaps.

C J Snarzell · 6 Apr 2020

The people who flout the lockdown rules are in a very small minority & sadly every country on this planet will have the idiots who refuse to comply with what is being said.

As an ex-cop I had the pleasure of once dealing with many of these people are just not deterred anyway by the police/court system and will just carry on doing what they are doing anyway regardless of the implications it has for the rest of us.

The problem with a stricter lockdown is that in Italy they are really starting to buckle. Many people over there live in flats/apartments & because they don't have the luxury of a garden or outside space to enjoy fresh air - the level of mental health & anxiety has rocketted. There are certain parts of Italy on the brink of social unrest because people are simply getting restless & fed up with being locked away with no end in sight.

I wouldn't like to think what would happen if the UK goes into full lockdown as the implications are imense.

CJ

daodao · 6 Apr 2020

trainophile said:
We are all incredibly lucky to have been born after the unimaginable awfulness of the world wars, and I have counted my blessings for this many times. I guess this is where our luck ran out - but only to a very minor level of inconvenience on the scale of things. We can do this.

That is over-optimistic. I expect the death toll as a result of this crisis to be well in excess of 100k in the UK. Covid-19 infection has at least a 1% death rate for those infected. In addition, with the NHS focussed on this acute problem, there will be excess deaths due to other causes, e.g. the cancer patient who doesn't have his/her potentially curable cancer resected in time, or the hypertensive patient whose blood pressure is inadequately controlled and then has a stroke. The economic consequences are likely to be at least as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Bletchleyite · 6 Apr 2020

beardedbrit said:
And enforced exactly how ?? Mass issuing of ankle monitors perhaps.

Much easier based on your location. If you're the other side of the country, it took you more than an hour to get there. There will be "blurred" logic there, i.e. it would be difficult to defend against "but I'm a fast runner", but it would assist strongly in keeping people spread out which is the aim.

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

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member