Revised English Covid Regulations from 8 March 2021

[DB]

Personally I think I'm going to apply for a postal vote this time, just to avoid the risk of conflict.

I already have, although don't know whether I'll bother to vote - lost all confidence in the political system at the moment.

 

[Jamesrob637]

It's almost like lockdown two from Monday onwards, at least until the 29th.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Sorry if I keep asking the same question but: as gov.uk are never clear as usual, can I drive a short distance for recreation from Monday? Or will I still have to stay in my local town until the 29th? For example like up to 10-15 km from my house (or 5-10 miles)

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Sorry if I keep asking the same question but: as gov.uk are never clear as usual, can I drive a short distance for recreation from Monday? Or will I still have to stay in my local town until the 29th? For example like up to 10-15 km from my house (or 5-10 miles)

There are no restrictions in law on travel within England. Guidance is merely just that, it cannot be enforced by the authorities.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

There are no restrictions in law on travel within England. Guidance is merely just that, it cannot be enforced by the authorities.

Problem is, I don't want to risk a £200 fine like what happened to those two ladies in Derbyshire back at the very beginning of the third lockdown...

 

[Watershed]

Sorry if I keep asking the same question but: as gov.uk are never clear as usual, can I drive a short distance for recreation from Monday? Or will I still have to stay in my local town until the 29th? For example like up to 10-15 km from my house (or 5-10 miles)

There isn't, and never has been, a requirement to stay local. That has been made up in the guidance.

There is, however, a requirement to stay at home unless you have a reasonable excuse.

From Monday, one possible reasonable excuse will be to undertake open air recreation in a public outdoor place. By definition, that requires you to leave home.

Once you are entitled to leave home there is no requirement to stick to places that are nearby.

The only 'indirect' limit on travel would be that if, for example, you go on a 500 mile train journey and then undertake 10 minutes' birdspotting, it could be argued you really left home mainly to go on a train journey.

Going on a train journey won't necessarily fall under any defined reasonable excuse, and thus to be legal it would have to constitute a reasonable excuse not listed in the law. Which is possible, but more 'risky' than relying on something codified in law.

So, in short, yes - anything whereby you are leaving home for the purposes of open air recreation, even if that involves some element of travelling, is lawful.

 

[Mojo]

Problem is, I don't want to risk a £200 fine like what happened to those two ladies in Derbyshire back at the very beginning of the third lockdown...

In addition to what the poster above stated - that penalty notice was withdrawn by the police as it was issued in error.

 

[MrTurbostar170]

Some police forces are better than others with regards to the distance travelled guidance. Norfolk police are one of the bad ones, recently telling someone to turn back as they travelled 8 miles from Clenchwarton to Castle Rising, along with countless examples of people at the beach being fined in the local press recently.

 

[Watershed]

along with countless examples of people at the beach being fined in the local press recently.

That's one thing they definitely won't be able to get away with from Monday.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's the problem though. People who have any insight into the genuine terror, pain or discomfort they can cause people will just opt out of working them. All that will be left will be the "well at first I was a bit wary, but it didn't cause me any real trouble, and you must be the same" brigade. Personally I think I'm going to apply for a postal vote this time, just to avoid the risk of conflict.

Really sorry to hear of so many cases of detesting the mask. Sincerely.
I dislike my mask quite a lot but not to the stage where I can’t wear one. Fortunately it’s rare that I have to wear one all day; they really are unpleasant, inhuman things and I relish the day I can bin mine.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Thanks for the advice guys. I will consider doing a day trip.

My local police force is Sussex Police - not sure what their reputation is, whether they are good or not.

 

[Philip]

I notice that even beyond 29th March, whilst the 'stay at home' order will be lifted, the government have continued the nonsense of "guidance against travelling outside your area'. Not sure we really want this kind of guidance as it will discourage many from travelling long distance and cause continuing unease.

 

[johnnychips]

^ Quite. There is no definition of what is ‘local’. I walked from Meadowhall to Barnsley today and got the train back. I consider that local as it is in South Yorkshire.

 

[DB]

I notice that even beyond 29th March, whilst the 'stay at home' order will be lifted, the government have continued the nonsense of "guidance against travelling outside your area'. Not sure we really want this kind of guidance as it will discourage many from travelling long distance and cause continuing unease.

Causing continuing unease seems to be one of the government's biggest priorities.

 

[bramling]

I notice that even beyond 29th March, whilst the 'stay at home' order will be lifted, the government have continued the nonsense of "guidance against travelling outside your area'. Not sure we really want this kind of guidance as it will discourage many from travelling long distance and cause continuing unease.

... no doubt there will still be a bit of curtain-twitching in places.

One positive thing, this time round we don’t seem to have had the masses of nasty laminated signs going up all over the place. Perhaps people have grown tired of all this now, especially as many tended to get removed!

 

[Markdvdman]

Rumours are Wales will remove the Stay at Home junk on friday but restrict to 5 mile radius. That is no lifting at all they are a disgrace!!! In fact all the home nations are with us citizens!

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Rumours are Wales will remove the Stay at Home junk on friday but restrict to 5 mile radius. That is no lifting at all they are a disgrace!!! In fact all the home nations are with us citizens!

Sounds like the usual claptrap from Firebreak Drake and his assembly. I expected nothing different.

Even in Scotland you are allowed free movement within your own local authority (and up to 5 miles into a neighbouring local authority) for exercise, and I thought that was a bit totalitarian...

 

[Kite159]

Rumours are Wales will remove the Stay at Home junk on friday but restrict to 5 mile radius. That is no lifting at all they are a disgrace!!! In fact all the home nations are with us citizens!

Great for those in Cardiff Not so great if you are in a more rural area in Pembrokeshire or Powys.

 

[island]

The mask change is odd - as far as I can see it says you have to wear a mask in a polling station (unless exempt) but if you're not exempt and refuse to wear one then there's nothing that can be done about it (?). I suppose it could mean they are obliged to find some other mechanism to let you vote without being in the station (filling in your ballot outside?)

You can still be issued an FPN, or made to fill out your ballot outside, or removed from the indoor part of the polling station after voting, amongst other things. What they cannot do is prevent you from voting.

There are no restrictions in law on travel within England. Guidance is merely just that, it cannot be enforced by the authorities.

There is, however, a reasonableness test, as others have alluded to. If you travel a great distance to do something you could reasonably have done more locally, you end up running the risk of falling foul of the law.

 

[Watershed]

There is, however, a reasonableness test, as others have alluded to. If you travel a great distance to do something you could reasonably have done more locally, you end up running the risk of falling foul of the law.

It's worth noting that the 'reasonable necessity' test only applies to:

1. A reasonable excuse listed in the Regulations, and even then :-
2. The underlying need to leave or remain away from home to undertake an activity

In other words, you can't leave home to undertake a specified activity, if it's reasonably possible to do it from home (e.g. work from home).

But that 'reasonable necessity' test only applies to whether or not it would have been possible to do the activity from home. The 'reasonable necessity' test doesn't impose a limit on how long you can stay away from home to do the activity (and therefore the distance you may travel).

The only real limit on distance comes from the 'purpose of' test, which for example means that you're unlikely to be able to travel 500 miles to do 10 minutes of open air recreation and claim it was 'for the purposes of outdoor recreation'.

Such an activity could still be a reasonable excuse other than those enumerated in the Regs, but obviously that would be a question for a court to decide if it came to it.

"Luckily" this inane nonsense should be behind us in 19.5 days' time... never to be seen again, I hope!

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

There is, however, a reasonableness test, as others have alluded to. If you travel a great distance to do something you could reasonably have done more locally, you end up running the risk of falling foul of the law.

The reasonable excuses to leave the home are defined. There is no need to further interpret the reasonableness of carrying out a defined "reasonable" activity, which by definition, is reasonable, and therefore permitted without further limitation, except where it is specifically referenced in the text.

The law is very simple.

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member, or

(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

Taking exercise into consideration, the law essentially says this:

You cannot leave the house without a reasonable excuse, but here are the reasonable excuses. 6(1)

A reasonable excuse is to leave the house for exercise either alone or with someone else from your home. 6(2)(a)

The only time a test of "reasonableness" applies is:

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

Every other clause is without any reasonable test whatsoever, and the legislation has declared that, save for (f) and (l) - the reasons do not require a reasonableness qualifier.


The other (rather significant) feature of this legislation which is overlooked:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

The word "include" is very important. The government could have chosen to word it in the alternative, e.g. A person may not leave the house for any reason excluding the need to:....

Therefore by using "include" it indicates that the list of "reasonable excuses" defined in law are not intended to be fully exhaustive , and there are other things not on that list which could still potentially be lawful.

 

[DB]

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

"includes the need" - i.e. it's not an exhaustive list.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

"includes the need" - i.e. it's not an exhaustive list.

As above at the bottom of my post

 

[35B]

The reasonable excuses to leave the home are defined. There is no need to further interpret the reasonableness of carrying out a defined "reasonable" activity, which by definition, is reasonable, and therefore permitted without further limitation, except where it is specifically referenced in the text.

The law is very simple.

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—



Taking exercise into consideration, the law essentially says this:

You cannot leave the house without a reasonable excuse, but here are the reasonable excuses. 6(1)

A reasonable excuse is to leave the house for exercise either alone or with someone else from your home. 6(2)(a)

The only time a test of "reasonableness" applies is:

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

Every other clause is without any reasonable test whatsoever, and the legislation has declared that, save for (f) and (l) - the reasons do not require a reasonableness qualifier.


The other (rather significant) feature of this legislation which is overlooked:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

The word "include" is very important. The government could have chosen to word it in the alternative, e.g. A person may not leave the house for any reason excluding the need to:....

Therefore by using "include" it indicates that the list of "reasonable excuses" defined in law are not intended to be fully exhaustive , and there are other things not on that list which could still potentially be lawful.

And the subjectivity comes in when the definition of “reasonable” is queried. I live in Lincolnshire; I would expect a policeman stopping me in the Lake District to query whether it was reasonably necessary to take my exercise there and not more locally. I would not care to get into a debate given the stated intent of the policy about whether (f) and (i) limit the applicability of reasonableness to those two activities, or act to reinforce the intent of the legislation to restrict mobility. Nor would I wish to be on the point of having to argue that my choice to travel 200 miles for exercise was “reasonable excuse” under (1), even with exercise being listed within (2).

As I respect the authority of the government to seek to limit the spread of Covid through these NPIs, I have and will continue to abide by the spirit of the regulations rather than looking for loopholes.

 

[DB]

And the subjectivity comes in when the definition of “reasonable” is queried. I live in Lincolnshire; I would expect a policeman stopping me in the Lake District to query whether it was reasonably necessary to take my exercise there and not more locally. I would not care to get into a debate given the stated intent of the policy about whether (f) and (i) limit the applicability of reasonableness to those two activities, or act to reinforce the intent of the legislation to restrict mobility. Nor would I wish to be on the point of having to argue that my choice to travel 200 miles for exercise was “reasonable excuse” under (1), even with exercise being listed within (2).

As I respect the authority of the government to seek to limit the spread of Covid through these NPIs, I have and will continue to abide by the spirit of the regulations rather than looking for loopholes.

Sure, it might be fairly clear that the example you give wouldn't be looked on favourably, but what about someone who lives in Leeds going to Harrogate or Hebden Bridge? The problem is that it's entirely subjective and therefore wide open to over-zealous police to take it too far (as Derbyshire police have proved adept at doing several times over the past year).

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

And the subjectivity comes in when the definition of “reasonable” is queried. I live in Lincolnshire; I would expect a policeman stopping me in the Lake District to query whether it was reasonably necessary to take my exercise there and not more locally. I would not care to get into a debate given the stated intent of the policy about whether (f) and (i) limit the applicability of reasonableness to those two activities, or act to reinforce the intent of the legislation to restrict mobility. Nor would I wish to be on the point of having to argue that my choice to travel 200 miles for exercise was “reasonable excuse” under (1), even with exercise being listed within (2).

As I respect the authority of the government to seek to limit the spread of Covid through these NPIs, I have and will continue to abide by the spirit of the regulations rather than looking for loopholes.

I think you're missing the point, that is inherently incorrect.

The government has ALREADY DECIDED AND LEGISLATED what a reasonable excuse actually is (and actually generously left the door open for even more reasons not listed to be potentially reasonable, which would/may be subjective). There is no need whatsoever to make any other interpretation. Some of the reasonable excuses are listed explicitly, like exercise. It is without a doubt perfectly legal to travel anywhere you like for exercise, regardless of whether the police say otherwise. It is also, taking it to an extreme, perfectly lawful to travel to an English airport, board a plane, and take your exercise in Dubai (or any other country), so long as your reason for leaving the house is indeed, ultimately to take exercise.

There is zero room for subjectivity except for (f) or (l).

A reasonable excuse is and always is already considered reasonable (by the government and according to the law) if it appears in the list. If it appears on the list, it is reasonable. It really is that simple. Not, "it could be reasonable" or "it might be reasonable" - the government has legislated that anything in that list absolutely IS ALREADY reasonable.

It is not for you, or the police, to challenge the definition of reasonable, because it is already defined, (again except for (f) or (l) ).

This applies to England only.

 

[bramling]

The reasonable excuses to leave the home are defined. There is no need to further interpret the reasonableness of carrying out a defined "reasonable" activity, which by definition, is reasonable, and therefore permitted without further limitation, except where it is specifically referenced in the text.

The law is very simple.

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—



Taking exercise into consideration, the law essentially says this:

You cannot leave the house without a reasonable excuse, but here are the reasonable excuses. 6(1)

A reasonable excuse is to leave the house for exercise either alone or with someone else from your home. 6(2)(a)

The only time a test of "reasonableness" applies is:

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

Every other clause is without any reasonable test whatsoever, and the legislation has declared that, save for (f) and (l) - the reasons do not require a reasonableness qualifier.


The other (rather significant) feature of this legislation which is overlooked:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

The word "include" is very important. The government could have chosen to word it in the alternative, e.g. A person may not leave the house for any reason excluding the need to:....

Therefore by using "include" it indicates that the list of "reasonable excuses" defined in law are not intended to be fully exhaustive , and there are other things not on that list which could still potentially be lawful.

Surely if outdoor recreation is now going to be permitted, if my recreation is, for example, to walk and take some photos on the Keswick railway path, by definition I can’t do that anywhere else, so the distance travelled becomes irrelevant. Or am I misunderstanding what they have in mind by recreation?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

The real (serious) and really concerning issue is the police training (College of Policing) - https://www.college.police.uk/guidance/covid-19-restrictions/persons .



This is shocking, and a severe overstep, and because of the way it is written, police officers believe this is the law.

They have added in the words "where it is reasonably necessary" as a qualifier to the list of reasons. That sentence DOES NOT APPEAR anywhere in the legislation. It is that sentence which is causing the problems!

Where the law essentially says no person may leave the house except to do XYZ ..... the police are trying to enforce "no person may leave the house except to do XYZ where it is reasonably necessary".

It is a disgraceful state of affairs.

 

[DB]

I think you're missing the point, that is inherently incorrect.

The government has ALREADY DECIDED AND LEGISLATED what a reasonable excuse actually is (and actually generously left the door open for even more reasons not listed to be potentially reasonable, which would/may be subjective). There is no need whatsoever to make any other interpretation. Some of the reasonable excuses are listed explicitly, like exercise. It is without a doubt perfectly legal to travel anywhere you like for exercise, regardless of whether the police say otherwise. It is also, taking it to an extreme, perfectly lawful to travel to an English airport, board a plane, and take your exercise in Dubai (or any other country), so long as your reason for leaving the house is indeed, ultimately to take exercise.

There is zero room for subjectivity except for (f) or (l).

A reasonable excuse is and always is already considered reasonable (by the government and according to the law) if it appears in the list. If it appears on the list, it is reasonable. It really is that simple. Not, "it could be reasonable" or "it might be reasonable" - the government has legislated that anything in that list absolutely IS ALREADY reasonable.

It is not for you, or the police, to challenge the definition of reasonable, because it is already defined, (again except for (f) or (l) ).

This applies to England only.

While the reason may not be subjective, the distance travelled for exercise definitely is. What is reasonable? A mile? 2 miles? 5 miles? 10 miles? Everyone will interpret this differently and in the absence of any case law nobody can say what is reasonable unless it gets as far as a court.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Surely if outdoor recreation is now going to be permitted, if my recreation is, for example, to walk and take some photos on the Keswick railway path, by definition I can’t do that anywhere else, so the distance travelled becomes irrelevant. Or am I misunderstanding what they have in mind by recreation?

You are totally correct. You can travel anywhere you like from yesterday for the purposes of a recreational activity. The English law doesn't stop you from travelling into Scotland or Wales either.

However, Scotland or Wales have their own laws which stop you (potentially) from crossing the border.

While the reason may not be subjective, the distance travelled for exercise definitely is. What is reasonable? A mile? 2 miles? 5 miles? 10 miles? Everyone will interpret this differently and in the absence of any case law nobody can say what is reasonable unless it gets as far as a court.

Please, please show me where it says anywhere or even implies anywhere, that there needs to be a subjective opinion? There is no such law or restriction! You can travel wherever you like, whether 1 mile or 1000 miles. You are not seemingly understanding this is not illegal. Unless there is a law preventing something, generally, in the UK, it is by default, permitted. It is in black and white that exercise (or now recreation) is a reasonable excuse. Not a reasonable excuse subject to a 5 mile limit, not even anything close. If you are out of the house for exercise or recreation (or even to go to a cash machine to "collect money") - that is the only thing you need to comply with. Nothing more than that! It is horrific that, even people such as yourself, who I am sure is a good honest citizen, have fallen victim to the confusion the government, police and media have created, almost in every case, as a result of people interpreting non-binding guidance or "policies" which both have absolutely no lawful basis.

In Wales, for example, they at one time, explicitly legislated for a 5 mile cap. In England, this has NEVER been a feature of the law.