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

[Cowley]

I assume one of the big issues for police is that this is rushed into law - they admitted that, when announced, they only knew as much as anyone else - and perhaps it was not subject to the scrutiny, checks, training, examples etc which would normally happen.

Police have also said that they are trying to encourage people to understand the need for the measures, rather than write out a ticket. Consider...

A) Tyrone, a college student who doesn't take much notice of the news, goes out to the hypermarket in his car to buy a playstation to stave off boredom - knowing that the hypermarket is still open as it sells food. The police stop him in the car park and explain the reason behind the rules, that he should go home etc. A penny drops in Tyrone's head and he goes "Oh, yeah, hadn't thought about that constable. Yeah ok, I didn't realise, sorry constable" and the constable goes "Ok, well you're here now anyway, you may as well buy it and get home, have a nice day and keep 6'6" from everyone ok?".

B) Kevin, a local pub lawyer who *knows* the country would be run properly if *he* was in charge, goes out to the hypermarket in his car to buy a playstation to stave off boredom. The police stop him in the car park and explain the reason behind the rules. Kevin quotes select portions of the rules to the constable, asks why they think they have the right to ask him anything, says that they're a bunch of >expletive< >expletive< and they should be out catching proper criminals like the ones he often posts about on his local vigilante facebook group. The police explain they are trying to educate people and reduce the spread of the virus, but Kevin starts rambling on about 5G and a video what he once saw on youtube, and how do you explain that? Eh? Eh? And nobody's going to stop his god given right to buy his playstation. The supermarket's security bloke asks him to leave as he's making a scene and swearing in front of children, at which point Kevin lunges and thumps him, at which point he gets nicked for ABH as well as getting his ticket for not respecting the lockdown. The police constables spend the rest of their shift booking him in and doing the reams of paperwork whilst Kevin clogs up one of their cells and contracts covid19 from one of the other inmates.

... which outcome is more positive for *everyone*?

Love it.
I’m sure we all know both types of people...

 

[Tom B]

Somebody invited me into a facebook group 'campaigning for a full lockdown!!!!!!!!!!1111111111one'. I didn't take up the invitation, but it's amusing. Subsequently, someone else posted on said group about how they'd spent three hours wallpapering with their dad and he was coming back over tomorrow with ladders to help them finish off - whilst simultaneously ranting about people on the beach not listening. Do as I say....

 

[Cowley]

Somebody invited me into a facebook group 'campaigning for a full lockdown!!!!!!!!!!1111111111one'. I didn't take up the invitation, but it's amusing. Subsequently, someone else posted on said group about how they'd spent three hours wallpapering with their dad and he was coming back over tomorrow with ladders to help them finish off - whilst simultaneously ranting about people on the beach not listening. Do as I say....

Where’s he getting his wallpaper from?

 

[jellybaby]

Where’s he getting his wallpaper from?

Online? Plenty on Amazon. Or you could get some John Lewis own brand delivered to your local Waitrose for collection along with your essential[1] Ardennes pâté.

[1] says it is essential on the packet so no arguing with that

 

[Cowley]

Online? Plenty on Amazon. Or you could get some John Lewis own brand delivered to your local Waitrose for collection along with your essential[1] Ardennes pâté.

[1] says it is essential on the packet so no arguing with that

I’m after essential Thistlebond plaster at the moment, but I don’t think John Lewis sell that...

 

[M28361M]

Where’s he getting his wallpaper from?

Wilko is open and they sell wallpaper in-store (at least, they usually do, I don't know if they still are in the current crisis).

Meanwhile, the Guardian is reporting that police chiefs are urgently drawing up new guidelines to clarify the lockdown rules. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ment-powers-following-criticism-lord-sumption

Police chiefs are drawing up new guidance warning forces not to overreach their lockdown enforcement powers after withering criticism of controversial tactics deployed to stop the spread of coronavirus, the Guardian has learned.

The intervention comes amid growing concern that some forces are going beyond their legal powers to stop the spread of Covid-19, with one issuing a summons to a household for shopping for non-essential items and another telling locals that exercise was “limited to an hour a day”.

On Monday, former supreme court justice Lord Sumption said that excessive measures were in danger of turning Britain into a “police state”, singling out Derbyshire police – which deployed drones and dyed a lagoon black – for “trying to shame people in using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the fells”.

The Guardian has learned that the National Police Chiefs Council and College of Policing (NPCC) is rushing through guidance reminding officers that despite politicians’ warnings they cannot bar people from going for a run or a drive.

It will state that while certain actions such as driving to exercise may be unwise, they are not prohibited by the emergency powers, according to sources with knowledge of detailed discussions. It is also expected to conclude the law does not restrict people to leaving their home to exercise just once a day.

Hopefully this will bring a bit of clarity/sanity to proceedings. (Lord Sumption does seems to have missed the point that the lagoon in question is toxic and hardly a "beauty spot" if you try to swim in it)

 

[Tom B]

Has any enterprising niche shopkeeper, otherwise barred from opening, started selling bread and milk on the side to allow him to open?

 

[Cowley]

Has any enterprising niche shopkeeper, otherwise barred from opening, started selling bread and milk on the side to allow him to open?

If anyone was going to do that I’d hope that my local model railway shop would.

Dave. If you’re reading this I could really do with a static grass applicator and a loaf of bread...

 

[infobleep]

Probably so, for instance as an easy solution to honeypotting - "200 miles to the Peak District isn't 2km from home, go home, here's your £30 fine". Not "you're 2.1km from home, here's your £30 fine".

Would that be 2.1km as the crow flies or as you can reach said destination by car? Then the argument might be, which route and which navigation system as different ones produce different results.

The Wimbledon and Putney Common leve for home owners is based upon the walking distance from their front gate to the commons and not driving distance. So that is an example of something that doesn't even take into account one's car or how the crow flies.

Not too far from where I love, someone or some people had drawn a social distancing hopscotch on the pavement.

No idea when the hopscotch was chalked on the ground or if they even played it. However if they did it this weekend and they were not members of the same household, they risked a £60 fine, reduced to £30 is paid in x days. I forget the precise number of days. If they were of the same household not much the police could do I imagine. Unless they could be done for graffiting the pavement. Could they?

I did two forms of exercise on Sunday, which may not be within the law for all I know. However the second one was only for 5 minutes to photograph said pavement. I'd have combined it with my 2 hour walk but my phone battery ran out. As I didn't see any police about, in practice, not issue.

Incidentally I was so tempted to see if the ticket office in Guildford Station was open. Perfectly legal to walk that way but I might have struggled to be able to "seriously keep my distance", to quote my specialist nurse, from others so I thought better of it.

I doubt I'll go out again until next weekend. However I don't think that means you can do mutiple sessions of exercise, due to missing days out. Bit like mobile phone data contracts. Anything you don't use in one month is often lost the next month.

Due to being a semi-shielder, owing to being on a immunosuppressant, I'm not going to the shops for at least another 11 weeks. People talk about 3 weeks and a review. Well in my case it is 12 weeks and a review.

This has meant others needing to drop off food and medication. They place the goods by my front door. Then they go into my back garden and I chat through the door, whilst keeping my distance. No idea if them being in my back garden is within the law or whether they should be dropping off the food at going as I don't need any essential help beyond that.

I reckon you could meet local friends whilst queueing for the supermarket, if you planned it right. Far better than holding parties as parties are illegal.

On Saturday my sister and nephew visited, with the food and my Humira pen. Was is it reasonable for my nephew to come along? If my brother in law was working one of his train driver shifts yes as my nephew can't be left alone but if he wasn't? The journey is 1 hour each way from their house to mine.

Another friend popped over later he same day, with more food and another distant chat. Again the only reason they could do this was the need for food but legally should they have stayed? One of the semi-shielding perks, due to being in the moderate risk group, is visitors such as these. Not being able to go out and help others is one downside though.

Technically they could bring me food every day but I don't think that is a good idea. It's about being sensible. So I probably won't see them for another week if that.

A friend was going to go to one supermarket the other day but the police adviced it was busy so they drove further away to another one. Perfectly reasonable to do so and sensible advice from the police. Going further away because you don't like the kind of people who go to your nearest supermarket wouldn't be - yes a friend did say they wanted to go further away due to the clientèle in their local. However if your nearest one lacked a perticular food item then I think it might be reasonable to go to another.

I am lucky to only be semi-shielding, This meant I could go out for some exercise, just not to the supermarket. Up until Sunday, I hadn't been out of my house boundaries since last Tuesday and on that day it was only for 5 minutes or so.

I'm certainly getting less exercise as I use to run for 20 minutes to railway stations and for obviously reasons I don't do that now. Still only another at least 11 weeks.

 

[nlogax]

I'm certainly getting less exercise as I use to run for 20 minutes to railway stations and for obviously reasons I don't do that now. Still only another at least 11 weeks.

It's one outcome I hadn't really considered until now - by the time the restrictions are eased many of us are going to have put on a few pounds at a time in the year when we'd expect to be losing a few!

 

[telstarbox]

Hope your Humira supplies are still getting through. I used to get them delivered at work and then have to rush the box home on the train before it warmed up too much!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Heard the police are now dyeing lakes black to stop people visiting. What could possibly go wrong?

They've been dying that specific lake for years. It causes rather a problem because it looks nice so people swim in it but the water is quite poisonous.

 

[AM9]

There was an interview last night on Newsnight with the CC of Avon & Somerset. In that he explained that most of the public were complying with the letter of the emergency law and also the spirit of it, and that was despite the personal inconvenience to them and sometimes the cost of doing so. The problem with ignoring those who think that the law and its intent doesn't apply to them with their byzantinejustifications for their behaviour is that many of the rest who are acting responsibly might assume that they might as well just join in and forget all the good intentions. If one, or three, or ten are allowed to drive to some local beauty spot, why can't everybody do that?

 

[ainsworth74]

If one, or three, or ton are allowed to drive to some local beauty spot, why can't everybody do that?

I mean if they don't break the law they can...

It wouldn't be wise but there's no legal impediment to them doing so as long as they follow the law.

 

[Meerkat]

I mean if they don't break the law they can...

It wouldn't be wise but there's no legal impediment to them doing so as long as they follow the law.

That is a pedantic and anti-social viewpoint that would just result in even tighter restrictions that then become a nightmare of exceptions.

 

[Mag_seven]

In that he explained that most of the public were complying with the letter of the emergency law and also the spirit of it,

Its a pity that a small minority of police officers /forces aren't. Hopefully the message from the National Police Chiefs' Council will get through

UK police officers have been told to take a "consistent" approach when ensuring people comply with emergency measures aimed at curbing coronavirus.

Guidance to officers calls on forces to "coordinate" efforts and emphasises the importance of professionalism.

This is a two way street and the police need to behave themselves as much as we have to.

 

[AM9]

I mean if they don't break the law they can...

It wouldn't be wise but there's no legal impediment to them doing so as long as they follow the law.

Maybe you feel that a mass disregard of the social sparationn rules and law wouldn't be a problem then. In society, there are those who would normally just accept their responsibility and not break the rules, and of course those who don't think thaat the rules apply to them. In the middle, there is a large number of people (sometimes severely) inconvenienced by the restrictions who wouldn't take much of a push to disobey and completely destroy any attempt by the authorities to deal effectively with this problem. As Meerkat says, that would probably result in the UK bringing in restrictions like they have in France where a document is needed to leave the home. That in itself could provoke a split in society where normally responsible people turn on those who have brought about such draconian measures. They wouldn't just see them as 'unwise'.

 

[AM9]

Its a pity that a small minority of police officers /forces aren't. Hopefully the message from the National Police Chiefs' Council will get through



This is a two way street and the police need to behave themselves as much as we have to.

So do you see that as a justification for others, (maybe including yourself) to do as you wish despite the intent of the law?

 

[infobleep]

Hope your Humira supplies are still getting through. I used to get them delivered at work and then have to rush the box home on the train before it warmed up too much!

They are getting through fine. Although my last delivery from my drug supplier was before the new regulations were notched up a gear or two.

It's one thing you can't panic buy here as your health care specialists at the hospitals you attend have to prescribe it. One doesn't even pay a prescription charge for it!

They get delivered to my parents as when I first stated it, back in 2010, I couldn't work from home like I can now.

I certainly wouldn't have had them delivered to work as on an average day my commute home was 90 minutes and once out of the fridge you shouldn't be putting them back in, if they have reached room temperature.

I digress though.

Talking of enforcement, you can move house if it is reasonable to do so. I take it one would have to test the reasonableness in a court of law.

I'd be amazed if enforcement action was taken against anyone moving house, unless they owned two and wanted away to avoid catching COVID-19, which for all they know, they might already have

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Maybe you feel that a mass disregard of the social sparationn rules and law wouldn't be a problem then. In society, there are those who would normally just accept their responsibility and not break the rules, and of course those who don't think thaat the rules apply to them. In the middle, there is a large number of people (sometimes severely) inconvenienced by the restrictions who wouldn't take much of a push to disobey and completely destroy any attempt by the authorities to deal effectively with this problem. As Meerkat says, that would probably result in the UK bringing in restrictions like they have in France where a document is needed to leave the home. That in itself could provoke a split in society where normally responsible people turn on those who have brought about such draconian measures. They wouldn't just see them as 'unwise'.

If, like me, you live on the edge of the Peak District, it's far easier to exercise at least two metres away from the nearest person on the top of Stanage Edge or Kinder Scout than it is down your local park.

 

[Mag_seven]

So do you see that as a justification for others, (maybe including yourself) to do as you wish despite the intent of the law?

No I don't. All I am asking is that we all, police and civilian both, comply with the rules.

 

[infobleep]

If, like me, you live on the edge of the Peak District, it's far easier to exercise at least two metres away from the nearest person on the top of Stanage Edge or Kinder Scout than it is down your local park.

There must be lots of public footpaths around you if you live in the countryside or close by to it. Those aren't as famous as Stange Edge or Kinder Scout.

 

[ainsworth74]

That is a pedantic and anti-social viewpoint that would just result in even tighter restrictions that then become a nightmare of exceptions.

Maybe you feel that a mass disregard of the social sparationn rules and law wouldn't be a problem then. In society, there are those who would normally just accept their responsibility and not break the rules, and of course those who don't think thaat the rules apply to them. In the middle, there is a large number of people (sometimes severely) inconvenienced by the restrictions who wouldn't take much of a push to disobey and completely destroy any attempt by the authorities to deal effectively with this problem. As Meerkat says, that would probably result in the UK bringing in restrictions like they have in France where a document is needed to leave the home. That in itself could provoke a split in society where normally responsible people turn on those who have brought about such draconian measures. They wouldn't just see them as 'unwise'.

As I have stated, repeatedly, the best thing everyone can do right now is follow the Government guidance and keep journeys to a minimum and only when required both because it's the right thing to do but also because I don't particularly fancy having tighter restrictions imposed on anyone. I don't think I can make myself clearer on that point which I believe I have now made several times on this thread (or perhaps another I've lost track). Certainly it is the guidance that I am following rather than the law because I believe the best thing we can all do is to follow the guidance.

But the law remains the law, in the absence of any change, so it is that which determines what people can be prevented from doing by the police or other agencies. They can be encouraged, cajoled, begged and beseeched to follow the tighter requirements of the official Government guidance (and I would support such an intervention by the police or others all day long) but in the absence of a change in the law they cannot currently be compelled to do anything unless they are in breach of the law as currently written.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Have individuals been told off? I thought the story was about police/officials telling shops what they could sell.

The BBC report that Cheshire Police have issued summonses to 6 people for buying "non-essential items". Lancashire Police, meanwhile, issued a staggering 123 FPNs in one weekend. £730 richer, should nicely pay for the Chief Constable's christmas present.

which outcome is more positive for *everyone*?

Option three, where the bizzies slap an FPN on someone without justification and are now sixty quid richer?

I think N. Yorks & Derbyshire have had to utilise roadblocks as they have had the greatest influx of people travelling to the area

It is not illegal to travel to the area for exercise. The Derbyshire harassment drones didn't show anyone who wasn't respecting social distancing. So no, they don't have justification.

 

[Tetchytyke]

he was coming back over tomorrow with ladders to help them finish off

Don't drive anywhere as it's a MENACE, but Gramps climbing a great big ladder? Fill your boots.

Either we care about "preventing accidents" or we don't.

 

[Meerkat]

The BBC report that Cheshire Police have issued summonses to 6 people for buying "non-essential items". Lancashire Police, meanwhile, issued a staggering 123 FPNs in one weekend. £730 richer, should nicely pay for the Chief Constable's christmas present.

do you know what the non-essential items were?
How does 123 FPNs = £730? They are £30 if you pay promptly and I doubt the police Getto keep the money.

It is not illegal to travel to the area for exercise. The Derbyshire harassment drones didn't show anyone who wasn't respecting social distancing. So no, they don't have justification.

It is not essential to drive to that area. Therefore you shouldn’t be doing it

 

[Bletchleyite]

do you know what the non-essential items were?
How does 123 FPNs = £730? They are £30 if you pay promptly and I doubt the police Getto keep the money.

There's a number missing - £7380 if it was £60 (though as you say it isn't).

 

[AM9]

The BBC report that Cheshire Police have issued summonses to 6 people for buying "non-essential items". Lancashire Police, meanwhile, issued a staggering 123 FPNs in one weekend. £730 richer, should nicely pay for the Chief Constable's christmas present.

Option three, where the bizzies slap an FPN on someone without justification and are now sixty quid richer? ...

Your dislike of the police seems to be clouding your judgement here, unless you have evidence of the police appropriating fines for personal use. If so maybe you could share it with the forum.
Fines go into the Government's general funds that pay for all sorts of things. In some cases, there is a deduction for the jurisdiction's expenses, (agents of the law including the police and the courts). As far as the police's share, that probably goes towards better equipment and more officers to catch and prosecute more of those who think that the law doesn't apply to themselves.

 

[ainsworth74]

and prosecute more of those who think that the law doesn't apply to themselves

Assuming that they're actually breaking the law rather than going against the guidance of course...

 

[AM9]

If, like me, you live on the edge of the Peak District, it's far easier to exercise at least two metres away from the nearest person on the top of Stanage Edge or Kinder Scout than it is down your local park.

I live about 400m from a medium sized park in an area where almost every resident is either retired or currently working at home. Although I haven't been in the park for the last week, neighbours who have, told me that everybody is being reasonable and keeping a safe distance is no problem at all. They all seem to have resisted the urge to drive to the Chilterns (mostly between 5 and 15 miles away) with their clear spaces and eyecatching views. Maybe it's a problem with Derby's population.