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

[Iskra]

A cab is a luxury cost for many people (esp. if you don't have a job), and not everybody lives in walking/heavy bag carrying distance to a shop.

If you are really struggling, look into ordering a Morrisons food box. They are outside the normal delivery system so availability is good.

 

[squizzler]

Much of the speculation on this thread about what we can and cannot do would be unnecessary if the home secretary had not got to ground and was actually on telly saying how the police should be interpreting the rules. Or even bothering to turn up at select committees. Apparently the next one of these is on the Tuesday, so after the population has had a sunny bank holiday to take advantage of the lack of national leadership.

 

[Iskra]

Much of the speculation on this thread about what we can and cannot do would be unnecessary if the home secretary had not got to ground and was actually on telly saying how the police should be interpreting the rules. Or even bothering to turn up at select committees. Apparently the next one of these is on the Tuesday, so after the population has had a sunny bank holiday to take advantage of the lack of national leadership.

There was quite clear clarification on the BBC website yesterday.

 

[sjpowermac]

I can see two sides to this. However I’d be quite worried were I for example aged early 60s and been told by the doctor I was bordering on diabetes. Such a person would be at work under the current guidelines.

If you think the current level of anger is over the top, it will pale into insignificance if people start losing loved ones in a manner that they see as having been preventable. Let’s hope that situation doesn’t arise.

I completely get where you are coming from. I think though that the points @yorkie is making are the ones the government isn’t making clear. There’s absolutely no way the country will remain in lockdown long enough for transmission of the disease to end or until we have a cure/vaccine for it. All we are achieving or likely to achieve is not overwhelming the NHS with new cases.

It’s my belief that there will be a partial end to the lockdown in early May, as a country I don’t see how we can possibly fund the current situation for much longer. I’m not saying that’s right but I think it’s the reality. At that point the number of cases will ebb and flow over the following months. Sadly, that will mean that several hundred deaths per day will become the norm.

At my own workplace one colleague is now in hospital with the virus and a second has a husband in intensive care. The second case is particularly sad because the husband was in the highly vulnerable category and his wife pleaded with management that she could stay home. I and a number of others rallied round and offered to cover her but the management refused to allow this. I hasten to add, this is a non-railway workplace.


I’ve read many of your posts and I must say I very much admire your dedication to keeping the job going in these troubling times. A big ‘thank you’ to you and your colleagues for keeping things going in these troubling times. I definitely understand your anger.

I think something worth bearing in mind is that it isn’t the odd person sun bathing that is the main cause of the current problems. Whilst I’m not a fan of Alister Campbell I think he makes some very good points in this article.

Media questions at No10 briefings are woeful. Here are 20 they should ask | TheArticle

www.thearticle.com

I wish you and your colleagues all the very best and thank you all once again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At my own workplace one colleague is now in hospital with the virus and a second has a husband in intensive care. The second case is particularly sad because the husband was in the highly vulnerable category and his wife pleaded with management that she could stay home. I and a number of others rallied round and offered to cover her but the management refused to allow this. I hasten to add, this is a non-railway workplace.

This is really a problem. I think it should be that anyone with a vulnerable person in the household should all be considered to be vulnerable and should not be working for at least the 12-week period, and that the Government needs to fund their income in the meantime.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that the logical next step will very much involve trying to redeploy younger, less at risk members of the workforce towards key roles, particularly public facing ones where possible.

Professor Ferguson in his recent Radio 4 interview said that any gradual lifting of lockdown likely to be on he basis of geography/age group.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Professor Ferguson in his recent Radio 4 interview said that any gradual lifting of lockdown likely to be on he basis of geography/age group.

I'm intrigued how that would work. I suppose pubs could ID check for a maximum age, but beyond that there isn't the level of lockdown that is nominally based on - that is, the only businesses that are forced to close are a specific set of public-facing ones.

 

[bramling]

I completely get where you are coming from. I think though that the points @yorkie is making are the ones the government isn’t making clear. There’s absolutely no way the country will remain in lockdown long enough for transmission of the disease to end or until we have a cure/vaccine for it. All we are achieving or likely to achieve is not overwhelming the NHS with new cases.

It’s my belief that there will be a partial end to the lockdown in early May, as a country I don’t see how we can possibly fund the current situation for much longer. I’m not saying that’s right but I think it’s the reality. At that point the number of cases will ebb and flow over the following months. Sadly, that will mean that several hundred deaths per day will become the norm.

At my own workplace one colleague is now in hospital with the virus and a second has a husband in intensive care. The second case is particularly sad because the husband was in the highly vulnerable category and his wife pleaded with management that she could stay home. I and a number of others rallied round and offered to cover her but the management refused to allow this. I hasten to add, this is a non-railway workplace.


I’ve read many of your posts and I must say I very much admire your dedication to keeping the job going in these troubling times. A big ‘thank you’ to you and your colleagues for keeping things going in these troubling times. I definitely understand your anger.

I think something worth bearing in mind is that it isn’t the odd person sun bathing that is the main cause of the current problems. Whilst I’m not a fan of Alister Campbell I think he makes some very good points in this article.

Media questions at No10 briefings are woeful. Here are 20 they should ask | TheArticle

www.thearticle.com

I wish you and your colleagues all the very best and thank you all once again.

Yes I agree, and the article is a good read (even though like you I’m no fan of Mr Campbell). I think the sunbathing is more a symptom of a wider problem, which is that some people just aren’t taking things as seriously as they perhaps should.

It probably doesn’t help that much of the early stages of this affair were dominated by the notion that younger / healthy people were unlikely to be affected. This has led to two problems - firstly that it’s turning out that this isn’t quite as absolutely true as we all may have initially thought (even if it’s still on the whole a fair yardstick), but secondly it overlooks the risk of younger people passing the virus on.

There’s no easy solutions, however equally we can’t just expect to see for example a decimation of the bus driver population and just accept it as a fact of life. I think it’s quite reasonable that at some point more people will have to return to work, including less essential roles, however equally I don’t think there’s any case at all for people to be allowed to do things like go for a day out by train to the seaside. That is at the absolute bottom of the priority list.

 

[farleigh]

I am on another forum and a lad from China posted this. He is from Chonqing. I hope this is the right place for it - I found it interesting:

"I can't speak for the whole of China, but can share my personal observations.
Things have been close to back to normal for a couple of weeks now where I live. The last places to reopen are the schools and unis. Primary and middle schools have announced start dates for later this month or early May.
Subway to work, office buildings etc are as busy as before the crisis.
More people wear masks while out and about than before.
I have a network of about 3000 people, both Chinese and foreigners living in China. None of them have reported testing positive or knowing anyone who's tested positive.
I took a family member to the hospital last week (not covid/flu/cold related). It was no busier than usual.
We visited the cemetery for tomb sweeping. Nothing unusual going on.
A colleagues family were locked down in Hubei and came home last week"

 

[yorksrob]

I'm intrigued how that would work. I suppose pubs could ID check for a maximum age, but beyond that there isn't the level of lockdown that is nominally based on - that is, the only businesses that are forced to close are a specific set of public-facing ones.

I can't speak for anyone of note, however in terms of geography, I would have thought that geographical areas might be brought in and out of lockdown, according to how they were doing in terms of infection rates/NHS pressure etc.

In terms of age, I would have thought it would be more changing the emphasis of the furlough scheme, so that rather than having the workforce furloughed by sector, it would be done by age group. Younger members of the workforce without pre-existing medical conditions who are currently furloughed could then move to take the place of some of the older more at risk groups.

It's not ideal - some key work is much more specialised. However, not all of it is. Plus there is the work which isn't exactly "key" but needs to get going at some stage to keep the economy (and all of our sanity) going.

 

[yorksrob]

I think something worth bearing in mind is that it isn’t the odd person sun bathing that is the main cause of the current problems. Whilst I’m not a fan of Alister Campbell I think he makes some very good points in this article.

Media questions at No10 briefings are woeful. Here are 20 they should ask | TheArticle

www.thearticle.com

Some good questions, but I would also like to see some longer term questions about the role of international supply chains and the country's depleted manufacturing capability in the current crisis.

 

[bramling]

Some good questions, but I would also like to see some longer term questions about the role of international supply chains and the country's depleted manufacturing capability in the current crisis.

Yes I think such questions are inevitable, they will come for sure.

 

[bramling]

I can't speak for anyone of note, however in terms of geography, I would have thought that geographical areas might be brought in and out of lockdown, according to how they were doing in terms of infection rates/NHS pressure etc.

In terms of age, I would have thought it would be more changing the emphasis of the furlough scheme, so that rather than having the workforce furloughed by sector, it would be done by age group. Younger members of the workforce without pre-existing medical conditions who are currently furloughed could then move to take the place of some of the older more at risk groups.

It's not ideal - some key work is much more specialised. However, not all of it is. Plus there is the work which isn't exactly "key" but needs to get going at some stage to keep the economy (and all of our sanity) going.

I suspect the stories about people driving to the seaside, second homes or whatever will guarantee that doesn’t happen. It kind of hasn’t helped that we’ve seen people like the Scottish CMO doing it!

 

[JonathanH]

Some good questions, but I would also like to see some longer term questions about the role of international supply chains and the country's depleted manufacturing capability in the current crisis.

How would you achieve that? The two options a government would take appear to be state aid or tariffs on trade, both of which would be frowned upon. The option for consumers is clear but they aren't prepared to pay higher prices and we probably already pay manufacturing workers a pittance compared with other workers.

 

[yorksrob]

How would you achieve that? The two options a government would take appear to be state aid or tariffs on trade, both of which would be frowned upon.

I think that there needs to be a change in outlook internationally on these issues. And we aren't the only country that's been burned in this respect, so I don't think we will be arguing on our own. You've been saying on this forum that there will be changes to our lifestyles as a result of this. There will be changes to the workings of the international economy as well.

 

[ainsworth74]

We're getting a bit off-topic here. This thread is about the enforcement of the lockdown not wider issues like international supply chains! I think that's a very interesting topic personally so I'd suggest someone starts a new thread to discuss it in a more appropriate setting.

Thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[yorkie]

Some good questions, but I would also like to see some longer term questions about the role of international supply chains and the country's depleted manufacturing capability in the current crisis.

I think some of those questions are very poor; certainly the time for many of them is not now. Also the way they are worded doesn't make sense for this type of virus; it's as if he is talking about a virus that could be contained. (And before anyone says China has contained it, those measures wouldn't work elsewhere and it's far too early to say if their extreme measures will actually work long term)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think some of those questions are very poor; certainly the time for many of them is not now. Also the way they are worded doesn't make sense for this type of virus; it's as if he is talking about a virus that could be contained. (And before anyone says China has contained it, those measures wouldn't work elsewhere and it's far too early to say if their extreme measures will actually work long term)

I certainly fear a deadly second wave in China, personally. I almost cringed at pictures of people hugging on the day it was released.

 

[yorksrob]

I think some of those questions are very poor; certainly the time for many of them is not now. Also the way they are worded doesn't make sense for this type of virus; it's as if he is talking about a virus that could be contained. (And before anyone says China has contained it, those measures wouldn't work elsewhere and it's far too early to say if their extreme measures will actually work long term)

Some are better than others.

I think the point he makes about some balls being dropped, where regular questioning would be good, is a good one.

I'm genuinely interested in how the drive to build ventilators is going, but haven't seen much on it for over a week now.

 

[Greybeard33]

Would you care to point me to the legislation that states what is and what is not classed as an essential item?

I think the legislation is perfectly clear if interpreted with a bit of common sense. Regulation 5 requires the closure of most shops:

5.—(1) A person responsible for carrying on a business, not listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2, of offering goods for sale or for hire in a shop, or providing library services must, during the emergency period—

(a)cease to carry on that business or provide that service except by making deliveries or otherwise providing services in response to orders received—

(i)through a website, or otherwise by on-line communication,

(ii)by telephone, including orders by text message, or

(iii)by post;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/5/made

Supermarkets are excepted from this by virtue of being food retailers, as listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2:

PART 3

24. Food retailers, including food markets, supermarkets, convenience stores and corner shops.

25. Off licenses and licensed shops selling alcohol (including breweries).

26. Pharmacies (including non-dispensing pharmacies) and chemists.

27. Newsagents.

28. Homeware, building supplies and hardware stores.

29. Petrol stations.
....

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/schedule/2/made

In many cases supermarkets also stock the ranges of goods sold by the other types of permitted shop, listed above. But some supermarkets additionally stock a range of non-food luxury and fashion goods, similar to those sold by shops that are not permitted to remain open in the present emergency (e.g. Next, John Lewis, Currys PC World....) These tend to be the type of purchases that a customer might linger over, rather than just grab and throw in the trolley, and are clearly not covered by the "supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household" dispensation in Regulation 6, Restrictions on movement. IMO supermarkets should be restricting sales of such goods to online purchases in the current emergency (as indeed Marks & Spencer is doing).

This is emergency legislation, hurriedly drafted and temporarily imposing extraordinary restrictions on civil liberties to slow the spread of the virus and so save lives. I am sure that the vast majority of police officers and magistrates will interpret it with that in mind, rather than demanding a precise legal definition of the word "essential". For example, the addition of a pair of socks to the shopping trolley might well be considered an essential purchase, but a trolley full of fashion attire less so.

 

[Meerkat]

The lack of strictly defined legislation is only an issue for barrack room lawyers and those with an anti police agenda.
The more tightly you define it the more exceptions you have to add making the rules hugely messy.
Vagueness gives us a good average position. Some people will take the mick whilst others will think “I don’t really need to peruse the clothes and homewares sections at Tesco, and I can just go for a walk from My front door.
I would rather have the police being a bit of a pain (almost all such cases have not involved fines/court) to marginal cases than have people who genuinely need to technically breach the rules have to ask for exemptions or rely on police turning a blind eye.

 

[superjohn]

I'm genuinely interested in how the drive to build ventilators is going, but haven't seen much on it for over a week now.

I have been contacted by an employment agency who are recruiting for a new government backed ventilator assembly facility. Work was due to start in the week ahead but that has been pushed back a little while the premises are being prepared.

It will be in Felixstowe which suggests that the components will be arriving by sea. I can’t see any other reason for basing it there.

So something is happening but you are unlikely to hear it announced until the government can shout some big numbers about it.

I also believe Donald Trump is personally building several million in his garden shed and will be sending them over any minute now.

 

[yorksrob]

I have been contacted by an employment agency who are recruiting for a new government backed ventilator assembly facility. Work was due to start in the week ahead but that has been pushed back a little while the premises are being prepared.

It will be in Felixstowe which suggests that the components will be arriving by sea. I can’t see any other reason for basing it there.

So something is happening but you are unlikely to hear it announced until the government can shout some big numbers about it.

I also believe Donald Trump is personally building several million in his garden shed and will be sending them over any minute now.

That's encouraging news. We shouldn't have to rely on our forum membership for updates though !

Numbers don't necessarily have to be big - just increasing.

 

[bramling]

The lack of strictly defined legislation is only an issue for barrack room lawyers and those with an anti police agenda.

This 100%. Personally I feel in little to no doubt about what I should and shouldn’t be doing, and strangely enough I’ve had no negative experiences with the police.

One might have thought that those with their own agendas might have realised that now’s not the time. Clearly some haven’t.

Yes I’m sure there will be examples of police taking things a little too far. However I’m quite sure this is the exception.

That said, I do feel the government could have been clearer on a number of areas. I think Boris being in hospital has had a bigger effect than we perhaps realise on the workings of government, and in particular the top team. It clearly came as a shock to them all, and unfortunately it’s understandable though unfortunate that it’s added an extra strain on things just at the worst time.

 

[Greybeard33]

I certainly fear a deadly second wave in China, personally. I almost cringed at pictures of people hugging on the day it was released.

With all the testing and monitoring now in place in China, they should be able to nip a second wave in the bud by quickly reimposing temporary lockdowns in areas affected. In China's favour is that, outside Hubei province, the virus never got the hold that it now has in Europe and the US before the strict lockdown was implemented. The residual number of cases, relative to the population size, must be quite low now, even if understated by the official figures.

 

[Enthusiast]

For example, the addition of a pair of socks to the shopping trolley might well be considered an essential purchase, but a trolley full of fashion attire less so.

Indeed. But that isn't the issue. The legislation as it is currently drafted does not restrict shoppers to "basic necessities" or "supplies for the essential upkeep..etc." provided, when they left home, they set out to buy some of those goods. The problem is that senior police officers have already begun to suggest that their officers will search shoppers goods to discover whether all they have bought is basic or essential (although they seem to have been put down somewhat by the Home Secretary). That is not within their powers and its not within the law. Yes it's true that the legislation was drafted quickly. But it would not have taken very much longer to ensure that only essential supplies could be sold or bought. If it had been drafted as such police officers would have a perfect right to examine shoppers' goods and to take action where they believed there were transgressions. But it wasn't, so they cannot.

People cannot be expected to second guess what the legislators intend - however hastily the legislation is drawn up - and police officers must act within the confines of the law. The example of the Yorkshire officers suggesting that residents could not step into their own front garden demonstrates that no proper regard is being taken by some officers for the limitations of their powers. South Yorkshire police later stated that the "encounter had been well-intentioned but ill informed." Police officers have no right to be ill-informed about what is currently a very important piece of legislation. The parts they are mainly concerned with enforcing are not lengthy or involved and as I demonstrated earlier, are as clear as day about gardens.

Most people are acting sensibly and I don't see too many ladies putting a cocktail dress through the till at Tesco's (I would hope Tesco's are not selling them at the moment and the ladies have no cocktail parties to attend anyway). But, although they are isolated incidents, there is obviously lack of clarity among some police officers as to precisely what the legislation allows them to do and that's always a bit worrying.

To be clear, I am not a "barrack room lawyer" nor do I have an anti-police agenda (far from it). But I don't want to see the police attempting to exercise powers that they don't have.

 

[Busaholic]

Some are better than others.

I think the point he makes about some balls being dropped, where regular questioning would be good, is a good one.

I'm genuinely interested in how the drive to build ventilators is going, but haven't seen much on it for over a week now.

BBC Radio news last night reported that the total number of new ventilators delivered so far is (or was then) 30, to which I gather can be added the ones being donated by 'Holby City' to the Nightingale in London, as they apparently are fully-functioning, though may need some WD40!

 

[yorksrob]

BBC Radio news last night reported that the total number of new ventilators delivered so far is (or was then) 30, to which I gather can be added the ones being donated by 'Holby City' to the Nightingale in London, as they apparently are fully-functioning, though may need some WD40!

Indeed - this was the last number I heard quoted, although I'm sure that was about a week ago now.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Holby ones were hand-me-downs from the NHS in the first place !

 

[Bletchleyite]

A slight problem with this situation is that British law typically works by writing the law for "the man on the Clapham omnibus", and then not really enforcing it heavily during an initial period, which gives the Police to send some possible cases to Court and the judiciary (and juries, if applicable) to make judgements setting precedent. Then it becomes clear what it means, but that may shift over time as technology and society does without the need to remake the law; it need only be revisited in Parliament if causing a particular issue. This approach generally works fairly well and does, by and large, result in convictions being fair.

This however doesn't work very well with a situation like this, where a law had to be written, come into force and be enforced at full weight near-immediately before any case had got anywhere near Court, and so it would have been beneficial for it to be more specific, particularly with regard to exercise and reasons to shop, and actually giving an exhaustive list of reasons to be out rather than reasons "including". For instance, for shopping it could have been worded as "Such a journey may only be undertaken where there is an urgent requirement for provisions on which a VAT rate of 0% applies, however it is permitted to purchase other items on a trip started for the former reason provided they are purchased from the same shop" - that is, you're fine picking up a chainsaw and a couple of air compressors from Aldi, but only if you need bread and milk as well.

Or as another one you could have had a stipulation like "You may not travel more than 5 miles radius of your home, unless the nearest retailer that is open selling the required provision is further from home than that, in which case the nearest such retailer must be used". This would stop workarounds like "I want some Grasmere gingerbread, so off to the Lake District I go" but does allow you to choose your local Booths[1] over your local Tesco if you prefer, regardless of whether one is 0.1 mile further away.

It is however actually quite specific about what constitutes staying at home, and that does very clearly include the front garden, so that Police Officer had clearly been too lazy to bother actually reading it. (Obviously they can't read every law, but with one like this it would make sense to at least scan over it!)

[1] Obviously the finest supermarket; any dissent will not be accepted

 

[bramling]

A slight problem with this situation is that British law typically works by writing the law for "the man on the Clapham omnibus", and then not really enforcing it heavily during an initial period, which gives the Police to send some possible cases to Court and the judiciary (and juries, if applicable) to make judgements setting precedent. Then it becomes clear what it means, but that may shift over time as technology and society does without the need to remake the law; it need only be revisited in Parliament if causing a particular issue. This approach generally works fairly well and does, by and large, result in convictions being fair.

This however doesn't work very well with a situation like this, where a law had to be written, come into force and be enforced at full weight near-immediately before any case had got anywhere near Court, and so it would have been beneficial for it to be more specific, particularly with regard to exercise and reasons to shop, and actually giving an exhaustive list of reasons to be out rather than reasons "including". For instance, for shopping it could have been worded as "Such a journey may only be undertaken where there is an urgent requirement for provisions on which a VAT rate of 0% applies, however it is permitted to purchase other items on a trip started for the former reason provided they are purchased from the same shop" - that is, you're fine picking up a chainsaw and a couple of air compressors from Aldi, but only if you need bread and milk as well.

It is however actually quite specific about what constitutes staying at home, and that does very clearly include the front garden, so that Police Officer had clearly been too lazy to bother actually reading it. (Obviously they can't read every law, but with one like this it would make sense to at least scan over it!)

Maybe it was a genuine mistake by the officer, who had possibly heard somewhere “stay indoors”, which is certainly something not uncommonly heard at the moment - presumably by people who simply haven’t thought through the precision of their words.

I bet the front garden incident wasn’t in the south-east, where no one actually *uses* their front gardens! It’s absolutely not the done thing at all.