Media Coverage of COVID -19

[Bantamzen]

I don't believe you can be fined for that.

This is what is being reported today:

This is how travelling from Tier 3 to Tier 2 areas could result in a fine

Tier three is the highest level of lockdown restrictions in the country and will remain in place until December 23.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

Police have warned you could be fined for leaving a tier 3 area as England moved out of a national lockdown and reintroduced the three-tier system last week.

Tier three is the highest level of lockdown restrictions in the country and will remain in place until December 23 when measures are eased slightly so that families can enjoy Christmas together.

Over Christmas, up to three households will be able to mix in private settings until December 27 when the tier system will come back into effect amid the coronavirus pandemic.

While those living in tier 2 areas are offered more lenient restrictions those living in tier 3 areas, such as Bradford and the rest of West Yorkshire, have been told they should avoid travelling to other areas of the UK unless it is essential.

Official Government guidance states: “Avoid travelling to other parts of the UK, including for overnight stays other than where necessary, such as for work, education, youth services, to receive medical treatment, or because of caring responsibilities.


“You can travel through other areas as part of a longer journey.”

Following a second national lockdown in England, police can now issue fines of up to £200 for a first offence and fines will double for repeat offenders, up to a limit of £6,400.

With the vast majority of the country in people have been told not to visit Tier 3 areas or stay overnight unless for reasons such as work, medical treatment or caring responsibilities.

Police told BirminghamLive: “"Tier 3 restrictions apply to people living in Tier 3 areas when participating in gatherings in Tier 1 and Tier 2 areas.

"Anyone that lives in a tier 3 area that is found breaking Tier 3 restrictions in a Tier 2 area risks a fine."

The first review of England’s tier system will take place on December 16 and health secretary Matt Hancock has said there will be weekly reviews after that.

 

[DB]

Fines for what exactly? The not going outside of Tier 3 areas is guidance, not law.

 

[Bantamzen]

Fines for what exactly? The not going outside of Tier 3 areas is guidance, not law.

I'm not sure really, but someone somewhere has made their minds up it seems even if it isn't law.

 

[DB]

I'm not sure really, but someone somewhere has made their minds up it seems even if it isn't law.

Has North Yorkshire police actually stated specifically anywhere that they will fine, or have they implied it? If they have made a specific statement I might email them asking for clarification...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2020 ==

I see the cops have a dedicated site for snitches:

Breach of coronavirus (Covid-19) measures

Report a breach of Coronavirus (Covid-19) rules.

www.police.uk

 

[Bantamzen]

Has North Yorkshire police actually stated specifically anywhere that they will fine, or have they implied it? If they have made a specific statement I might email them asking for clarification...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2020 ==

I see the cops have a dedicated site for snitches:

Breach of coronavirus (Covid-19) measures

Report a breach of Coronavirus (Covid-19) rules.

www.police.uk

Well the Indy did report something similar a few days ago:

Police track drivers moving between tier 3 and 2

Force accused of ‘totalitarian behaviour’ after threatening people with fines for travelling into county from tier 3 areas

www.independent.co.uk

Superintendent Mike Walker, who is leading North Yorkshire Police’s Covid response, said: “I realise there may be some confusion over what is deemed necessary in these circumstances, so I’d like to be clear here. It is neither necessary or acceptable to leave a tier 3 area and enter a lower tier area for a day trip or to visit a pub or restaurant for a meal.
“Please also be reminded that your tier restrictions travel with you and police can take enforcement action against you, if you should breach those restrictions.”
The force said its officers would be “actively patrolling” and would have an increased presence in border areas, while automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras have been installed on roads in the region.

So they are certainly threatening "enforcement", which one can only assume may involve the threat of fine.

Edit: I've just noticed that further down the article the Superintendent does state that fines are used as a "last resort", which is North Yorkshire Police speak for "We'll slap a £200 fine on you just for looking over the border...."

 

[DB]

Well the Indy did report something similar a few days ago:

Police track drivers moving between tier 3 and 2

Force accused of ‘totalitarian behaviour’ after threatening people with fines for travelling into county from tier 3 areas

www.independent.co.uk

So they are certainly threatening "enforcement", which one can only assume may involve the threat of fine.

The wording is very careful though! While it certainly appears that people are intended to read it like this, what he's actually saying there is that if you live in a Tier 3 area you should apply Tier 3 rules even in a Tier 2 areas. Those rules only advise against travelling to another area - it's not actually prohibited. So someone walking up a hill, or travelling from Tier 2 to 3 or vice versa to go to a shop, hasn't broken any rules.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2020 ==

I've just had a look at the actual legislation, and I can't actually see any mention at all in there about travelling outside a tier area, so the advice about travel seems to be nothing more than guidance in its entirety

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations impose restrictions on gatherings and on businesses in England. Areas which are not specified in Schedule 4 are subject to the restrictions set out in Schedule 1. Areas specified in Part 1 of Schedule 4 (those areas in Tier 2) are subject to the restrictions set out in Schedule...

www.legislation.gov.uk

(I can't quote as it's simply too long, and I am highlighting the absence of something!)

 

[island]

There is no legal prohibition against travelling between tier 3 and elsewhere, so the police are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Darandio]

They are and I believe in many of the reports they have actually acknowledged that. What is more worrying is that some of the reports have stated that if the police do stop people travelling between tiers they will try and get them for 'something else'.

 

[island]

Yes, I believe that is a consequence of section 69 of the Ways and Means Act.

 

[yorksrob]

This is what is being reported today:

This is how travelling from Tier 3 to Tier 2 areas could result in a fine

Tier three is the highest level of lockdown restrictions in the country and will remain in place until December 23.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

It seems like muddled reporting.

At one point it states that you can be fined for leaving a tier 3 area, then later on it states that the fine is for us tier 3 untouchables doing an activity not permitted in tier 3, in tier 2.

 

[DB]

Yes, I believe that is a consequence of section 69 of the Ways and Means Act.

But once they'd stopped them, they'd then have to find 'something else' if they wanted to charge them with anything, wouldn't they? As I understand it they would be able to stop Mr Bloggs and suggest that he turns around and goes back, but if Mr Bloggs says 'thanks for the advice but I've decided to continue anyway' there's nothing they could do unless they could get him for drink driving / car not roadworthy / etc.

 

[Bantamzen]

It seems like muddled reporting.

At one point it states that you can be fined for leaving a tier 3 area, then later on it states that the fine is for us tier 3 untouchables doing an activity not permitted in tier 3, in tier 2.

Well it is the T&A to be fair, so muddled is their middle name...

But nonetheless there seems to be mixed messages all around, which leaves the door wide open to shall we say allow some to take advantage of the situation.

 

[DB]

It seems like muddled reporting.

At one point it states that you can be fined for leaving a tier 3 area, then later on it states that the fine is for us tier 3 untouchables doing an activity not permitted in tier 3, in tier 2.

The actual law is that the tier restrictions follow the person from where they live, so if a person in a Tier 3 area goes to a Tier 2 areas they still have to behave as if they were in a Tier 3 area - and if they do something which is allowed in Tier 2 but not in Tier 3 they could theoretically be fined (although the chances of this actually happening are of course minimal!).

What they couldn't be fined for is the simple act of crossing the boundary between tiers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2020 ==

But nonetheless there seems to be mixed messages all around, which leaves the door wide open to shall we say allow some to take advantage of the situation.

I'm sure that only those of is who are very cynical think that this is exactly the intention...

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Yes, I believe that is a consequence of section 69 of the Ways and Means Act.

Is this actual Statute law / an Act of Parliament?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Well, no sign of them in Skipton on Saturday that I saw...

Perhaps they skipped town?

 

[Darandio]

Yes, I believe that is a consequence of section 69 of the Ways and Means Act.

Otherwise known as the 'If we can't screw them one way we'll screw them another way' act.

 

[DB]

Is this actual Statute law / an Act of Parliament?

No!

 

[bramling]

People were certainly doing that on Saturday - coming to Skipton from the towns further down the Aire valley.

It’s also quite interesting what we don’t appear to be seeing the “for goodness sake stay away from our village you irresponsible idiots” stuff like we saw earlier in the year. Or if it is happening it’s not being publicised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2020 ==

They are and I believe in many of the reports they have actually acknowledged that. What is more worrying is that some of the reports have stated that if the police do stop people travelling between tiers they will try and get them for 'something else'.

What something else could they realistically get people for though? Checking over their car with a tooth comb and finding some kind of defect?

 

[Scotrail12]

Did anyone spot that Piers Corbyn’s £10,000 fine was not issued, after he contested it in court ? No? Funny how it the case was not featured prominently in newspapers...

Piers Corbyn found guilty of breaching regulations at lockdown protest

Brother of former Labour leader spoke at May event in London’s Hyde Park

www.theguardian.com

Good for him that it got dropped - no reason at all for him to have been fined.

 

[Bertie the bus]

This is what is being reported today:

This is how travelling from Tier 3 to Tier 2 areas could result in a fine

Tier three is the highest level of lockdown restrictions in the country and will remain in place until December 23.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

Can you post a link to the report that backs up what you say about being fined for leaving tier 3 areas as opposed to a link to an article that doesn’t? That article says if you live in a tier 3 area and travel to another area AND participate in gatherings that are illegal in the area you reside, though may be legal in the area you have travelled to, you can be fined. The police don’t say or imply you can be fined for leaving a tier 3 area.

 

[Bantamzen]

Can you post a link to the report that backs up what you say about being fined for leaving tier 3 areas as opposed to a link to an article that doesn’t? That article says if you live in a tier 3 area and travel to another area AND participate in gatherings that are illegal in the area you reside, though may be legal in the area you have travelled to, you can be fined. The police don’t say or imply you can be fined for leaving a tier 3 area.

I already have, see the Independent article above where the Superintendent says fines may be isusued.

 

[notlob.divad]

Good for him that it got dropped - no reason at all for him to have been fined.

Read that story again. By my reading:

He was found guilty of the first offence on 16th May so has had the offence added to his criminal record. It was deemed by the judge that the 12 hours in custody was sufficient punishment.

As for the 2nd offence, (30th May) the judge only found that it was wrong to punish him twice for the same offence on the same day.
He had a fixed penalty notice, from earlier on the same day, so the judge has aquited him for what he wsa arrested for, but the original fixed penalty notice seems to have been accepted as there is no mention of it being contested in court.

 

[Sanatogen]

That court appearance had nothing to do with the £10k fine which was issued later in the year at an event he was accused of organising.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Can you post a link to the report that backs up what you say about being fined for leaving tier 3 areas as opposed to a link to an article that doesn’t? That article says if you live in a tier 3 area and travel to another area AND participate in gatherings that are illegal in the area you reside, though may be legal in the area you have travelled to, you can be fined. The police don’t say or imply you can be fined for leaving a tier 3 area.

This online article (https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/yorkshire-news/tier-3-bridge-drivers-trying-19411541) says, in relation to a bridge over a river which marks the boundary between Tier 2 and 3:

Officers have been seen turning vehicles after conducting spot checks.

The enforcement is being carried out by North Yorkshire Police who say drivers could face "enforcement action" if they are found to be on non-essential journeys.

 

[DB]

This online article (https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/yorkshire-news/tier-3-bridge-drivers-trying-19411541) says, in relation to a bridge over a river which marks the boundary between Tier 2 and 3:

Crap reporting there:

Hull Live spotted a couple pass across the bridge on foot on Sunday afternoon, perhaps unaware that crossing the frontier from Tier 3 to Tier 2 for a walk could technically be a breach of the coronavirus rules.

Clearly Hull Live hasn't actually read/understood the rules. Going for a walk across a boundary doesn't contravene anything.

Similar drivel here:

Odd Tier 3 border bans Yorkshire village residents from going to Co-op

One side of the bridge is in Tier 2, and the other is in Tier 3

www.examinerlive.co.uk

Due to strange coronavirus borders, residents from a North Yorkshire village could be faced with an eight-mile round trip to visit the Co-op.

Despite the nearest store being a stone’s throw away, under the latest tier system residents have been told not to cross borders into lower-tier areas except for specific reasons

Staithes, the fishing village located on the North Yorkshire coast, is one of the areas divided into two tiers.

As reported by TeesideLive, the people living in some of the houses on Cowbar Bank, which falls on the Redcar and Cleveland side of Staithes beck in Tier 3 and face the toughest restrictions.

But mere yards away across a short footbridge on the Scarborough side, it's classed as Tier 2.

According to the rules, that means residents shouldn't travel across the borderline unless necessary for work, education, youth services, to receive medical treatment, or because of caring responsibilities.

That also is nonsense. A person only contravenes the restrictions if they cross a boundary and do something which is specifically banned by the restrictions in force where they live. Visiting shops is allowed in all three tiers, so neither crossing a boundary or going to a shop on the other side is a contravention of any rules.

The list of reasons why someone should not cross the border (which are only advice, not law) is also open-ended - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tier-2-high-alert#travel says:

However, avoid travel to or overnight stays in Tier 3 areas other than where necessary, such as:

• for work
• for education
• to access voluntary, charitable or youth services
• to visit your support bubble
• to receive medical treatment
• for moving home
• because of caring responsibilities

The phrase 'such as' clearly indicates that the following list is not exhaustive (and there will be many different interpretations of what 'necessary' means), but the local rags seem to be assuming both that those are the only permitted purposes, and that this is a legal restriction and subject to fines - neither of which is true.

With this standard of journalism, it's hardly surprising that local rags are disappearing rapidly!

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Crap reporting there:



Clearly Hull Live hasn't actually read/understood the rules. Going for a walk across a boundary doesn't contravene anything.

Similar drivel here:

Odd Tier 3 border bans Yorkshire village residents from going to Co-op

One side of the bridge is in Tier 2, and the other is in Tier 3

www.examinerlive.co.uk

That also is nonsense. A person only contravenes the restrictions if they cross a boundary and do something which is specifically banned by the restrictions in force where they live. Visiting shops is allowed in all three tiers, so neither crossing a boundary or going to a shop on the other side is a contravention of any rules.

The list of reasons why someone should not cross the border (which are only advice, not law) is also open-ended - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tier-2-high-alert#travel says:



The phrase 'such as' clearly indicates that the following list is not exhaustive (and there will be many different interpretations of what 'necessary' means), but the local rags seem to be assuming both that those are the only permitted purposes, and that this is a legal restriction and subject to fines - neither of which is true.

With this standard of journalism, it's hardly surprising that local rags are disappearing rapidly!

Yes, but they are reporting those "rules" because that is what North Yorkshire Police are telling them are the rules!

Although I admit proper journalism should do their own research and challenge the police for making up non existent rules.

 

[DB]

Yes, but they are reporting those "rules" because that is what North Yorkshire Police are telling them are the rules!

Although I admit proper journalism should do their own research and challenge the police for making up non existent rules.

North Yorkshire police, in the actual quotes I've seen from them, are very careful to imply but not outright state this, no doubt knowing how it will be reported! Proper journalism would include actually reading the government guidance and the legislation.

 

[Scotrail12]

Julia Hartley-Brewer (morning host on TalkRadio) said today that they are having issues with YouTube because someone disliked an interview around a month ago surrounding COVID (they're known to be anti lockdown). They've had no videos uploaded today - I wonder if they have been banned and YouTube are completely censoring anyone who doesn't toe the party line.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes, but they are reporting those "rules" because that is what North Yorkshire Police are telling them are the rules!

Although I admit proper journalism should do their own research and challenge the police for making up non existent rules.

There is little journalism these days, so much is just copied and pasted from press releases or social media.

 

[brad465]

Julia Hartley-Brewer (morning host on TalkRadio) said today that they are having issues with YouTube because someone disliked an interview around a month ago surrounding COVID (they're known to be anti lockdown). They've had no videos uploaded today - I wonder if they have been banned and YouTube are completely censoring anyone who doesn't toe the party line.

There doesn't appear to be anything on her Twitter feed that suggests this point (unless they also went to the trouble of removing that), I reckon if they were/are genuinely being censored their presenters and followers would go out of their way to voice outrage about it.