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.
Meant to quote this aboveThere 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.
See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made
(It's the from Statutory Instrument relevant to England)
Yes, it is illegal in England to leave home without a reasonable excuse. Regulation 6 (1) of S.I. 2020/350 refers.Is it? Or is it just not advised/recommended?
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.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?
Wrong.Leaving home without a reasonable excuse is illegal.
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.Wrong.
Wrong.
much of our law is defined in court by precedent.It should never get to the point of needing defining in court given the reason the person would be out is for exercise.
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.
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.
Not quite.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.
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.This is against the rules, though it’s harsh and I would be interested who actually got the fine.
The rider is taking medicine to the vulnerable person - allowed.
The pillion has no excuse for the journey - why do they need to be there, does the old dear not open the door to her son in law?
I wonder what the whole context was. For example were they were walloping it along a fun road that was not exactly the most direct route, got stopped, smugly pulled out the medicine, and got arrogant when challenged.
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.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 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.
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.Driving or taking public transport to exercise isn't permitted. You have to run/cycle/walk from your home, max once a day.
Is there a link to these regulations?
ENGLISH Legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made
WELSH Legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/353/regulation/8/made
SCOTTISH Legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/103/part/4/made
In fact, the English legislation does not even prohibit one going outside for more than one form of exercise looking at it.
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.That is a very unfair and obtuse comment
Spot on. It’s a sad state of affairs to be in, but it’s where we’ve come to as a society.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.
There is nothing other than the guideline of locally, which has been stated as a 5 minute drive.So please direct me to the legislation that stipulates how many miles one can drive for exercise
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