Local lockdown in Greater Manchester, East Lancashire and parts of West Yorkshire - Discussion

[ForTheLoveOf]

A new regulation (SI 2020/824) has been published particularising the new requirements as respects Leicester, and including a ban on gatherings in a private household other than for members of one household, their bubble, and the usual exemptions. Probably we will see something similar for the other advertised local lockdowns.

I am too tired to read it again or type up the latest infringements on civil liberties rushed in without parliamentary scrutiny, but I am sure other members can make up for me.

To be honest, it's not actually as bad as it could have beem. There's a continuation of (most of?) the previous business closures. The primary additional restriction compared to the rest of England is the ban on gatherings in private dwellings, with exceptions as noted. The most notable part is that it actually precludes participating in such gatherings even outside the protected area, if you live within the protected area. However, good luck enforcing that...

Technically speaking that latter requirement can be circumvented by arranging the gathering in any of the devolved nations without such restrictions, though is it undoubtedly much easier simply to hire a venue, as that would then cease to be a private dwelling.

It’s an absolute farce for me so now because of some selfish individuals I now have to face over a three hour commute in the morning, instead of staying at my parents’ overnight.

Of course it's your decision, but quite frankly any such ban would be completely unenforceable even if it were law - which it still isn't, despite the bluster about midnight on Friday.

Assuming you wanted to comply with the law when they eventually bother to bring it into force, if we go by the latest Leicester Regulations (SI 2020/824) you would be permitted to stay overnight at your parents if:

• The stay is reasonably necessary for work purposes. I'd argue a stayover preventing a 3 hour commute would certainly satisfy this condition, or;
• You didn't engage in any social interaction with your parents. Your stay would then cease to constitute a gathering, or;
• You become a linked household with your parents' household. Of course if you have previously become a linked household with someone else then this option wouldn't be open to you theoretically, but again - who is going to enforce it? If you are sensible about it...

 

[yorksrob]

Surely they could access this extra support/funding without having to make a statement to the media declaring a major incident - same result minus the media circus!

Not necesssarily. Funding may be dependant on the declaration of a major incident.

 

[AdamWW]

Not necesssarily. Funding may be dependant on the declaration of a major incident.

That seems to be the case.

 

[30907]

Maybe, but I still struggle to see how we could detect that with any certainty, using less than... 50k tests in Bradford alone. To get similar sensitivity across the whole vast domain that restrictions are being imposed on would probably require the entire testing capacity of the UK for a week.

These are not actual numbers, but forecasts.

The figures being quoted per authority area (now 50-odd cases per 100k for Bradford MDC) are AFAIK actual positive test results (pillars 1 and 2).
There is a separate national figure (1 in 2k having the disease) which is a forecast based on repeat tests of a sample of the population and has always been several times higher than the figure produced by positive tests.

 

[AdamWW]

The figures being quoted per authority area (now 50-odd cases per 100k for Bradford MDC) are AFAIK actual positive test results (pillars 1 and 2).
There is a separate national figure (1 in 2k having the disease) which is a forecast based on repeat tests of a sample of the population and has always been several times higher than the figure produced by positive tests.

I think it is more correct to call it an estimate. It's not a forecast because it's not attempting to predict the future - in fact it's always going to be a bit behind due to the time taken to process tests etc.

Calculating R from these figures and then predicting how infections will increase or decrease would be a forecast.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

So can any of those that understand legal text work this out for me....

The SI for the Blackburn and Bradford areas is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/822/regulation/4/made

And says....

Restrictions on gatherings
4.—(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (3) applies, no person may participate in a gathering in the protected area which—

(a)consists of more than thirty persons, and
(b)takes place—
(i)in a private dwelling, including a houseboat,
(ii)on a vessel, other than a houseboat or a vessel used for public transport, or
(iii)on land which satisfies the condition in paragraph (2).

And

(4) During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in the protected area which—

(a)consists of more than thirty persons,
(b)takes place indoors, and
(c)would be a gathering of a kind mentioned in section 63(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994(2) if it took place on land in the open air.

And

(6) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)there is a gathering when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other;

Is it me, whilst (6) defines a gathering as being 2 or more persons do (1) and (4) actually only make gatherings of more than 30 persons illegal?

 

[AdamWW]

Is it me, whilst (6) defines a gathering as being 2 or more persons do (1) and (4) actually only make gatherings of more than 30 persons illegal?

That does look very odd.

I have very limited experience in reading legislation but one piece that I had to understand defined "day" as "school day", and then went on to use both terms in the document, implying they had different meanings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

By my reading they've stuffed that up by omitting to change "thirty" to "two", and as such the provisions aren't enforceable. 30 is what applies elsewhere. Classic copy and paste error!

 

[Solent&Wessex]

By my reading they've stuffed that up by omitting to change "thirty" to "two", and as such the provisions aren't enforceable. 30 is what applies elsewhere. Classic copy and paste error!

Just noticed this at the end, so it does seem only to limit gatherings of 30 or more.

EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations revoke and replace the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Luton) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/800).

These Regulations require the closure of businesses listed in the Schedule in Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford, to protect against the risks to public health arising from coronavirus, except for limited permitted uses. They also impose restrictions on gatherings both inside and outside, of more than 30 people. The closures and restrictions last until they are terminated by a direction given by the Secretary of State.

The need for the restrictions in these Regulations must be reviewed by the Secretary of State every 14 days, with the first review taking place by 15th August 2020.

No impact assessment has been prepared for these Regulations.



There is also no mention in the SI of anything which restricts people residing in the affected area from visiting private houses outside the affected area, as well as lots of other things cited by Hancock and Gov.uk as being illegal.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

So can any of those that understand legal text work this out for me....

The SI for the Blackburn and Bradford areas is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/822/regulation/4/made

And says....

Restrictions on gatherings
4.—(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (3) applies, no person may participate in a gathering in the protected area which—

(a)consists of more than thirty persons, and
(b)takes place—
(i)in a private dwelling, including a houseboat,
(ii)on a vessel, other than a houseboat or a vessel used for public transport, or
(iii)on land which satisfies the condition in paragraph (2).

And

(4) During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in the protected area which—

(a)consists of more than thirty persons,
(b)takes place indoors, and
(c)would be a gathering of a kind mentioned in section 63(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994(2) if it took place on land in the open air.

And

(6) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)there is a gathering when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other;

Is it me, whilst (6) defines a gathering as being 2 or more persons do (1) and (4) actually only make gatherings of more than 30 persons illegal?

And people whose first langauge is not English will immediately understand this and comply.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And people whose first langauge is not English will immediately understand this and comply.

Most people don't read the text of legislation, they comply with what they're told, which is a simplified version.

 

[DB]

I find it hard to believe that those regulations were actually drafted that badly by accident - far more likely that the legal situation and message being put out are intentionally different, so that unless there is a large gathereing the police are under no obligation to intervene.

It would be typical of the dodgy messaging we are regularly seeing from the government.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Most people don't read the text of legislation, they comply with what they're told, which is a simplified version.

More accurately, they are told a complete fiction. As per full lockdown.
Out once per day - wrong.
Out for less than an hour - wrong.
No travel - wrong.
Schools closed - apparently not so.
and so on.

I've stopped taking any notice.

 

[AdamWW]

Most people don't read the text of legislation, they comply with what they're told, which is a simplified version.

Indeed. How many people have actually read the legislation behind the laws they abide by?

Of course this means that should a government choose to suggest legislation goes further than it actually does, many people won't be aware of that they are being asked to do and what (legally speaking) they actually have to.

(As an aiside, I was pleasantly surprised some years ago when getting frustrated by confusing guidance to some legislation I had to understand to find the the legislation itself was actually a lot easier to understand than the guidance - well the English language not the Welsh version of it anyway).

 

[30907]

I think it is more correct to call it an estimate. It's not a forecast because it's not attempting to predict the future - in fact it's always going to be a bit behind due to the time taken to process tests etc.

Calculating R from these figures and then predicting how infections will increase or decrease would be a forecast.

I agree - I used Bantamzen's word for convenience.

 

[AdamWW]

I agree - I used Bantamzen's word for convenience.

Fair enough.

 

[30907]

So can any of those that understand legal text work this out for me....

The SI for the Blackburn and Bradford areas is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/822/regulation/4/made

And says....

Restrictions on gatherings
4.—(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (3) applies, no person may participate in a gathering in the protected area which—

(a)consists of more than thirty persons...

And

(6) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)there is a gathering when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other;

Is it me, whilst (6) defines a gathering as being 2 or more persons do (1) and (4) actually only make gatherings of more than 30 persons illegal?

I think you are right, and this appears to be the national (England-wide) legislation (or one of its iterations - on further checking it is not the original or current version).

The only new provision specific to BwD/BMDC seems to be about closure of certain premises in an earlier section.

Or it may be that the reference to 30 is intentional - ie this is the level where the law kicks in, below that is advisory, perhaps until further legislation is in place. (Note that the relevant guidance consistently uses "should" for individuals but "must" for businesses.)

 

[greyman42]

Easter isn't really that major a festival[1]. It's Christmas that is going to pose a very major challenge.

[1] If you're Christian it's more important than Christmas, but most people in the UK who celebrate Christmas aren't really Christian, it's just a family celebration.

Christmas is no big deal, you can have celebrations at other times of the year.

 

[AdamWW]

Christmas is no big deal, you can have celebrations at other times of the year.

I think that is not entirely true particularly for children. And quite a lot of people get time off at the same time at Christmas.

 

[takno]

Christmas is no big deal, you can have celebrations at other times of the year.

It's pretty much the most miserable time of the year from a weather and light point of view, and it's massively built into the UK's national psyche and calendar. It's also the site of a couple of bank holidays which aren't going to move.

I don't currently rate Christmas as a huge deal, but if after 10 months of restrictions I can't spend it with family I might well start to regard it as a very big deal indeed

 

[AdamWW]

It's pretty much the most miserable time of the year from a weather and light point of view, and it's massively built into the UK's national psyche and calendar. It's also the site of a couple of bank holidays which aren't going to move.

I don't currently rate Christmas as a huge deal, but if after 10 months of restrictions I can't spend it with family I might well start to regard it as a very big deal indeed

Yes - although the government does have form on moving bank holidays at less notice than might be ideal, I don't think moving Christmas would work, somehow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes - although the government does have form on moving bank holidays at less notice than might be ideal, I don't think moving Christmas would work, somehow.

Depending on when a vaccine is likely, most people would probably agree to have a family Christmas gathering at Easter instead, and that's already got two bank holidays. Kids of course could still have their presents from their parents on Christmas morning.

 

[AdamWW]

Depending on when a vaccine is likely, most people would probably agree to have a family Christmas gathering at Easter instead, and that's already got two bank holidays. Kids of course could still have their presents from their parents on Christmas morning.

If so, heaven help the government if they try to cancel that one....

 

[Ianno87]

Depending on when a vaccine is likely, most people would probably agree to have a family Christmas gathering at Easter instead, and that's already got two bank holidays. Kids of course could still have their presents from their parents on Christmas morning.

Most people are, in very strong terms, likely to tell the Goverenment where they can stick that suggestion...

 

[Richard Scott]

Depending on when a vaccine is likely, most people would probably agree to have a family Christmas gathering at Easter instead, and that's already got two bank holidays. Kids of course could still have their presents from their parents on Christmas morning.

I'm starting to wonder if some people on this forum are applying to be Government advisers with some of the bonkers suggestions. We need to get on with life instead of focusing on just the virus.

 

[A Challenge]

Christmas is no big deal, you can have celebrations at other times of the year.

You wouldn't say that about Eid, would you?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You wouldn't say that about Eid, would you?

The Government pretty much did, so by extension it's reasonable to do it for Christmas too if it proves necessary, as otherwise that's discriminatory.

 

[farleigh]

Depending on when a vaccine is likely, most people would probably agree to have a family Christmas gathering at Easter instead, and that's already got two bank holidays. Kids of course could still have their presents from their parents on Christmas morning.

Any evidence for this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any evidence for this?

Evidence for what specific aspect of it, sorry?

 

[farleigh]

Evidence for what specific aspect of it, sorry?

Yeah - sorry I was not clear there! I was wondering what you based the bit about people would probably agree to have a Christmas gathering at Easter. My instinct is the opposite and that it would never happen.