Loading Notifications...

Police in Horton in Ribblesdale

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 yorkshire_lad2 09 Jan 2021

Police booking walkers & taking car reg numbers in Horton Carpark.....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/settlechat/permalink/1009484692908621/

(Horton in Ribblesdale, North Yorkshire: frequent start of the Yorkshire Three Peaks, and home of Pen-y-ghent)

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Wasn't North Yorks the other Force up to no good last time?  I give it a week for the retractions...

 GrahamD 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

It depends really what you consider "good" at this time.

In reply to GrahamD:

Enforcing the law as it is written, and giving strongly worded advice to those who are perhaps not sticking to the spirit of the law and guidance.

Police overstepping their authority is NEVER good, regardless of what good may come from it.  It is dangerous.

There are enough people actually breaking the law, e.g. having visitors at home, that they can get stuck into.

Post edited at 16:28
In reply to Neil Williams:

Cases at 516/100000 so no problem here

 ianstevens 09 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Loads of people out in the moors too (I live here and they’re in walking distance) with cars abandoned all over the shop. Send some of the coppers this way and they’ll have a field day with covid and parking tickets! (And hopefully encourage people to stay local)

In reply to Neil Williams:

> There are enough people actually breaking the law, e.g. having visitors at home, that they can get stuck into.

So you want a copper and a sledgehammer at every door then...? ;-)

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> So you want a copper and a sledgehammer at every door then...? ;-)

If people going in other peoples' houses is the main problem, they need to be doing some traditional on-foot beat policing watching for it, particularly in the evenings, not sitting in their nice warm cars in rural car parks drinking coffee.

I can't help but think they are going for easy targets.

Post edited at 16:57
 Offwidth 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

How do they legally enter a private dwelling without a warrant? You are going on about of abuse of police powers on the other thread.

In reply to Neil Williams:

> If people going in other peoples' houses is the main problem, they need to be doing some traditional on-foot beat policing watching for it, particularly in the evenings, not sitting in their nice warm cars in rural car parks drinking coffee.

I suppose it's possible they could do both. Shy of knocking on doors though not sure how they'd physically do it. 

> I can't help but think they are going for easy targets.

Guess a target is a target. Honestly, not got much sympathy with people in the Horton example. If we were to go with your suggested cut off of 10 miles being reasonable you'd expect the place to be empty. I'm obviously not there but it does sound busy (too busy for what might be reasonable?).

Anyway, you know I was being mischievous ;-)

In reply to Offwidth:

> How do they legally enter a private dwelling without a warrant? You are going on about of abuse of police powers on the other thread.

I'm not suggesting they bash doors down.  Though in many cases obtaining a warrant then returning later would work, as most offenders are going to be serial offenders.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Guess a target is a target. Honestly, not got much sympathy with people in the Horton example. If we were to go with your suggested cut off of 10 miles being reasonable you'd expect the place to be empty. I'm obviously not there but it does sound busy (too busy for what might be reasonable?).

10 miles is what I'd write into the law, myself.  I'm not suggesting they should use that as a basis for enforcement with nothing being in the law about it.

> Anyway, you know I was being mischievous ;-)

 Tringa 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

The problem is with the vagueness of the law which is open to interpretation.

Some walkers are interpreting it one way and some police another way and only the courts can decide which is correct, and even then court decision can be overturned.

I agree a set travel distance should have been put into the law, eg "... you must not travel more than X miles to take exercise."

However, I think the Government did not want to bit the bullet and do that so we have this somewhat ambiguous result.

Dave

In reply to Tringa:

As a general principle I would like any law enforceable by fixed penalty (i.e. where people generally won't challenge it because it's awkward and costly) to be strict liability and absolute, not open to interpretation.  So for this case, it would need to be based on distance from your place of primary residence.  Most countries have done that, but most countries don't seem to take pride in making laws deliberately vague like our system does, something I've always found to be a bit silly.

Precedent and interpretation does have its purposes, particularly where changes in society have caused a law to need to be interpreted differently, but the day a law is written it shouldn't be confusing.  Most other countries, including Scotland and Wales, seem to have managed to get this right.  (Wales for instance mandates no motorised travel for exercise with only a couple of fairly clear exceptions).

And with regard to guidance vs law, I would make anything that is for the individual's benefit guidance (e.g. shielding[1]) and anything for society's benefit law (e.g. travel restrictions to avoid the new strain spreading too quickly).

[1] Though there's a case for legally mandatory shielding at present, temporarily, due to the NHS being overwhelmed.

Post edited at 09:43
 mwr72 10 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

They should fine everyone who's vehicle isn't registered locally, and if there is someone from outside the area who is there legitimately they can appeal the fine.

Post edited at 11:19
 GrahamD 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Tringa:

> However, I think the Government did not want to bit the bullet and do that so we have this somewhat ambiguous result.

> Dave

Hardly surprising, is it ? It doesn't need much thought to come up with grey areas not covered by a five mile rule.  What if I'm a long distance delivery driver ? Would I no longer be able to take any exercise when I'm on the road ?

As I said before, plenty of legislation uses terms like "reasonable", such as employment laws or health and safety.  Most people don't concern themselves with it in the same way as they want to this time round.  Suddenly everyone is a legal expert.

In reply to mwr72:

> They should fine everyone who's vehicle isn't registered locally, and if there is someone from outside the area who is there legitimately they can appeal the fine.

They absolutely should not.  They should only fine people who they reasonably believe to have actually broken the law as it is written.

In reply to GrahamD:

> As I said before, plenty of legislation uses terms like "reasonable", such as employment laws or health and safety.  Most people don't concern themselves with it in the same way as they want to this time round.  Suddenly everyone is a legal expert.

I am concerned about and object to any use of fixed penalties or other similar enforcement against non-absolute laws.  It leaves too much discretion with individual Police Officers.

As this law was intended for enforcement via fixed penalties, it should have been absolute, like it was in most other countries.  A lot of people seem to miss the bit I put in bold there - is it English exceptionalism again?

Post edited at 11:32
 wintertree 10 Jan 2021
In reply to thread:

What ever I think about the police and outdoor honeypots doesn’t really matter.

Right now I would rather the honneypot police were outside supermarkets preventing people going in without a mask and backing up store staff who intervene when customers won’t follow distancing rules.

Everyone who goes to a honey pot chooses to go there. Many people have little choice but to shop occasionally and they should be protected from others who make bad choices.  This will I think also do more to reduce net transmission of the virus.

Post edited at 11:53
In reply to wintertree:

Completely agreed.  Also, having Officers on the beat around known-problem residential areas and watching for people about to go into someone else's house (which is the root of much of the spread) would be a good idea.  Going for a cup of tea round Aunty Doris's is the source of a lot of the spread.  There has, throughout the pandemic, been little evidence of significant outdoor spread.

Post edited at 11:41
 mwr72 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

How long do you lot who can't follow the law want us to remain in lockdown because you're too selfish to take excersize at home, you know, maybe taking a walk from home instead of moving out of your area in your car because you think the law is ambiguous?

Look up the word "MUST" in a legal context and stop claiming you don't understand the bloody rules.

In reply to mwr72:

> How long do you lot who can't follow the law want us to remain in lockdown because you're too selfish to take excersize at home, you know, maybe taking a walk from home instead of moving out of your area in your car because you think the law is ambiguous?

That's very presumptuous of you (and incorrect, too).

I would support the law being stricter on this matter; I would as stated elsewhere like to see a maximum distance from home of 10 miles.  I am also very strongly of the view that it is dangerous - more dangerous than COVID - for it to be considered OK for Police to enforce things that are not law.

> Look up the word "MUST" in a legal context and stop claiming you don't understand the bloody rules.

Where is "MUST" used in the context of driving for exercise in the law or guidance, please?  To get full marks for this question please provide a link to the law (on legislation.gov.uk) or the guidance (on gov.uk) and a quote of the relevant paragraph.

Post edited at 11:46
 mwr72 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

"When you can leave home

You must not leave or be outside of your home except where you have a ‘reasonable excuse’. This is the law. The police can take action against you if you leave home without a ‘reasonable excuse’, and issue you with a fine (Fixed Penalty Notice).

You can be given a Fixed Penalty Notice of £200 for the first offence, doubling for further offences up to a maximum of £6,400.".

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home

In reply to mwr72:

Yes.  You will then, if you look further down, find a list of things that are reasonable excuses, one of which is taking exercise.

Where does it state specifically that driving for that exercise is not permitted, please?  Things are only illegal if the law says they are.  Anything not defined as illegal is by definition legal.

Post edited at 11:51
 Cobra_Head 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I can't help but think they are going for easy targets.

And yet they're still targets.

People are taking no notice (at least some of them) of the guidance, hence we've got full hospitals, worked out hospital staff, and more deaths than we've had so far.

Grabbing a few headlines and making sure people know, if they break the rules they'll be fined, rather than fine, makes lots of sense. This is especially true, when people are bending the guidance to suit their own wants.

What do you suggest we do to halt the spread of this virus? It doesn't spread itself does it?

600 staff off sick, or having to isolate, in my sisters hospital.

Some things shouldn't need legislating against, it should simply be the right thing to do.

Post edited at 11:56
 mwr72 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

You're just being ambiguous for the sake of an argument now, lock down is really getting to you isn't it!

"You should minimise time spent outside your home, but you can leave your home to exercise. This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area."

However you want to interpret this you're going to argue the toss. But the way I interpret this is don't get in my car and travel somewhere when I should stay local to excersize, is, stepping out of the door and walking past my car, and continuing to walk for 30mins or an hour.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Grabbing a few headlines and making sure people know, if they break the rules they'll be fined, rather than fine, makes lots of sense.

Why not concentrate on things that actually are illegal and actually are causing lots of spread, like "tea with Granny", not going for a country walk in a relatively local area?

> What do you suggest we do to halt the spread of this virus? It doesn't spread itself does it?

Close non-essential businesses.  Make it illegal for two people not from the same household to travel in the same vehicle for work purposes, other than emergency services.  Close schools properly - education can be caught up later.  Require a tighter level of control on numbers of people in shops.  Require petrol stations to serve only from the night hatch.  Put a 10 mile limit on travel from home.  Remove childcare bubbles other than for a list of specified key workers.  Make it illegal for children under the age of 16 to be out of the home without direct supervision from a parent or guardian, and penalise the parent if they are (they are mixing freely and without distancing all over the place).

There's some ideas that would actually reduce cases, not slapping parking tickets on people for driving a few miles for a country walk.

> Some things shouldn't need legislating against, it should simply be the right thing to do.

It must never be acceptable for the Police to enforce things that are not law, for any reason, ever.  That's how you end up with a police state.  Once it's acceptable now, it'll be acceptable later, too.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't choose to be stricter on themselves.  Good on people who do.

In reply to mwr72:

> "You should minimise time spent outside your home, but you can leave your home to exercise. This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area."

Should is guidance, not law.  No musts there, are there?

Also, I consider the other side of town "in my local area", and so indeed does the more specific part of the guidance further down.  Again there is nothing stating how I may reach parts of my local area to exercise.

> However you want to interpret this you're going to argue the toss. But the way I interpret this is don't get in my car and travel somewhere when I should stay local to excersize, is, stepping out of the door and walking past my car, and continuing to walk for 30mins or an hour.

And it's fine that you have chosen that for yourself, it's also how I have been conducting myself (and I usually do, I prefer to make all the time I'm spending exercising actually exercising).  That does not make it the law, and that does not mean the Police should be enforcing things that are not the law.  If the Government want it to be the law, that's what they need to do, then the Police should enforce it.

Just because I may think a given type of conduct is wrong does not mean it is acceptable, if I was a Police Officer, to start fining people for it.  There's plenty of conduct that I think is wrong that is not illegal.  Parking on pavements is perhaps a decent example.

Post edited at 12:08
 minimike 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

re: target is a target.. they were parked outside the entrance to the hospital the other day, sat in their car, stopping pedestrians and cyclists and asking why they were out of the house. It was 7:30am and snowing, the VAST majority were hospital staff arriving or leaving. Notably they weren't stopping cars. Guess it required getting out in the cold.. Ticking off a target?

 mwr72 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Should is guidance, not law.  No musts there, are there?

No, not in the subsection but it is trumped by must which is in the main section. 

In reply to minimike:

> Guess it required getting out in the cold..

Certainly appears to me that most of the visible policing going on has been of the lazy type.

The main issues - people gathering in homes and local areas, especially kids and teenagers - is only effectively policeable on foot (plus possibly horse and bicycle) with traditional beat policing.  It seems the Police have got far too lazy to do this, and find it easier to enforce against people who are not or probably not breaking the law (every single pedestrian and cyclist stopped will be able to say "exercising" with no further action possible).

Post edited at 12:14
In reply to mwr72:

> No, not in the subsection but it is trumped by must which is in the main section.

No, it's not.  You don't understand the law very well, do you?

The guidance on gov.uk isn't the law, you need to read the law on legislation.gov.uk which is the bit that can actually be enforced.  It is basically all the "must" bits and not the "should" bits.

Post edited at 12:17
 mwr72 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

You're a bored idiot.

I'm out.

 pec 10 Jan 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> What ever I think about the police and outdoor honeypots doesn’t really matter.

> Right now I would rather the honneypot police were outside supermarkets preventing people going in without a mask and backing up store staff who intervene when customers won’t follow distancing rules.

Absolutely. The purpose of lockdowns and restrictions in general is surely to prevent the spread of Covid.

Cars cannot spread Covid, people can. It doesn’t matter if I walk from my front door or drive somewhere to walk, the car will not spread Covid en-route and nor will I sitting in it. It’s what I do once I leave my front door or the car that matters.

Now I accept an unrestricted distance free for all is a recipe for abuse of the lockdown with people pretending to drive somewhere for exercise when they’re doing something else entirely, but a reasonable defined distance isn’t going to result in the spread of Covid especially since outdoor settings remain a highly unlikely cause for spread. In fact if I walk to my nearest outdoor space from home I will pass dozens of people doing the same, if I drive a few miles I can quickly find solitude.

If the police want to monitor outdoor honeypots for people gathering in large stationary groups and so on then that might be useful but punishing people simply for being there serves no useful purpose especially when, as you say, all sorts of risky behaviours are going on elsewhere like people wearing masks as a chin guard.

The emphasis should be on harm prevention not a mindless implementation of an ill defined law.

 wercat 10 Jan 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

And what does 5 miles mean?  As the Crow flies or distance travelled?  Surely Crow Flies is the one that determines whether you materially increase the risk of carrying the infection outside your area.

I could drive 60 miles and never get more than single figure miles from home!

 wercat 10 Jan 2021
In reply to pec:

we have some rule maniacs here who don't even understand the difference between substantive law and glibly phrased ministerial summaries and guidance.

people really do need to be a bit more sensible about restrictions being put on what is causing most of the infection transfer and stop being barrack room lawyers

 tehmarks 10 Jan 2021
In reply to mwr72:

A learned opinion for you to consider:

https://stjohnsbuildings.com/news/guidance-or-law-fined-for-exercising-during-lockdown

Sadly, this is yet another example of the misunderstanding as to what the current ‘lockdown’ restrictions allow us to do...Guidance is just that. It is not law and it is not enforceable.
...
It is not illegal to travel to exercise. It is not illegal to exercise outside more than once a day. It is not illegal to exercise outside for longer than an hour a day.
...
We know that since the pandemic started hundreds of people have been wrongly convicted for crimes under coronavirus laws.

The police must act wth recourse to the law. Any other approach is not compatible with a fair and just society. I can't believe that people are willing to sacrifice that concept for convenience or pragmatism. It sets a horrendous precedent that can only end badly for all.

 Jmacquarrie 10 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

They'd be better enforcing mask wearing in shops really. I'd guess that would cause quite a lot of friction but from a transmission lessening perspective it would be much more effective.

 pec 10 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

> we have some rule maniacs here who don't even understand the difference between substantive law and glibly phrased ministerial summaries and guidance.

> people really do need to be a bit more sensible about restrictions being put on what is causing most of the infection transfer and stop being barrack room lawyers

I think that, means we agree?

The emphasis should be on actual harm prevention.

In reply to Jmacquarrie:

> They'd be better enforcing mask wearing in shops really. I'd guess that would cause quite a lot of friction but from a transmission lessening perspective it would be much more effective.

Completely agreed.  They appear, as is often the case, to be taking the easy option, not the most effective one.

In reply to Neil Williams:

> Completely agreed.  Also, having Officers on the beat around known-problem residential areas and watching for people about to go into someone else's house (which is the root of much of the spread) would be a good idea.  Going for a cup of tea round Aunty Doris's is the source of a lot of the spread.  There has, throughout the pandemic, been little evidence of significant outdoor spread.

Family from three households mixing here (neighbour has his son and daughter over, they've driven to visit parents). I'm trying to busy myself but I'm really angry. 

In reply to minimike:

> re: target is a target.. they were parked outside the entrance to the hospital the other day, sat in their car, stopping pedestrians and cyclists and asking why they were out of the house. It was 7:30am and snowing, the VAST majority were hospital staff arriving or leaving. Notably they weren't stopping cars. Guess it required getting out in the cold.. Ticking off a target?

That's ridiculous and a waste of resource or would be at the wife's hospital as visitation has been banned for a while now. BTW the target is a target was a possible explanation rather than a defence. (Though I do think a deterrent message is needed. Far too much piss taking.) 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Family from three households mixing here (neighbour has his son and daughter over, they've driven to visit parents). I'm trying to busy myself but I'm really angry.

And that means one infection becomes 6 or more - that's a hellishly high R, and it's that that they need to stop.

I suspect one of the aspects of the new more transmissible strain is that the old one got into households, but with a bit of care it didn't necessarily get to everyone, particularly if an adult brought it in so they could just hide in one room away from everyone else for a week or so.  Whereas I suspect with the new one it's impossible for it not to get to the whole household.

 mysterion 10 Jan 2021
In reply to mwr72:

> They should fine everyone who's vehicle isn't registered locally, and if there is someone from outside the area who is there legitimately they can appeal the fine.

The Police have been put back in their box, yet again, by the NPCC who say there is no legal limit on how far you can travel for exercise so there is no reason to issue a fixed penalty.

How plain does it need to be before people like you understand.

Post edited at 14:59
In reply to mysterion:

> The Police have been put back in their box, yet again, by the NPCC who say there is no limit on how far you can travel for exercise. How plain does it need to be until people like you understand.

The only reason there isn't tighter law at the minute is because Johnson is afraid of his libertarian backbenchers. 

The headlines and the messaging out in today's news is that tighter measures might have to be brought in (presumably because those backbenchers won't be able to stomach the inevitable backlash when the fingers get pointed).

Any tightening will be because people aren't getting what the guidance is trying to achieve. Willful or ignorant, choose one. Too many people dipping too far into the biscuit tin and bleating about what's allowed. And that will spoil it for everyone. 

Post edited at 15:02
In reply to mysterion:

Providing you stay in England; too many idiots heading for the Beacons and Snowdonia. 

 wintertree 10 Jan 2021
In reply to pec:

I generally agree, but...

> Cars cannot spread Covid, people can. It doesn’t matter if I walk from my front door or drive somewhere to walk

I'm looking at fuel stations with a leary eye.  Most people using a car are going to need to refill before this crisis is over.  If you can use "pay at pump" or one of the other contactless payment systems, that's helpful.  For now, I can't justify to myself a trip to a fuel station where I pay indoors, partially as a result of driving for leisure.

 GrahamD 10 Jan 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> What ever I think about the police and outdoor honeypots doesn’t really matter.

> Right now I would rather the honneypot police were outside supermarkets preventing people going in without a mask and backing up store staff who intervene when customers won’t follow distancing rules.

That rather depends on the level of PPE they have been issued with.  It's easy to forget the welfare of the police in all this.

 wintertree 10 Jan 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

> That rather depends on the level of PPE they have been issued with.  It's easy to forget the welfare of the police in all this.

That's why I said outside supermarkets, although I still take your point.  Some people do seem to resort to shouting in your face pretty quickly, and I suppose spitting is an even greater risk now.

But, if we're not going to police the real problem spots, we've got a serious problem as we're running out of things to ban, and things seem to still be getting worse.

How to safely police these situations?  Policing by consent may be put under a lot of pressure soon; the resources are not there for alternatives short of the armed forces.

Difficult.

In reply to Neil Williams:

> Yes.  You will then, if you look further down, find a list of things that are reasonable excuses, one of which is taking exercise.

> Where does it state specifically that driving for that exercise is not permitted, please?  Things are only illegal if the law says they are.  Anything not defined as illegal is by definition legal.

That's not strictly true.

In the case of knife legislation there's a definition of a penknife as having a non-locking blade with a length of less that 3.5 inches (or something like that, I haven't looked it up). You can carry that without 'reasonable excuse'. If the blade locks the knife isn't 'illegal', you just need a 'reasonable' justification, (it's tool used for work etc). Likewise carrying a penknife may not need a 'reasonable excuse' but carrying one into a nightclub isn't going to go down well if you get arrested for fighting. There are some things like flick knives etc where possession is strictly illegal, but there will always be ambiguous situations which may end up in court.

No existing law is so comprehensive that it covers all possible situations, which is why 'guidance' is issued to interpret the law. In some circumstances this might be issued as an Approved Code of Practice (ACOP). An ACOP is only GUIDANCE, it is not the LAW - you don't need to follow it, but by following it to the letter you have an (almost) cast iron defence that you have adhered to the law.

However there will be some circumstances where, due to the nature of a particular job that has to be done it's either impossible to comply with the ACOP, or to do so might actually make the job more hazardous due to something that wasn't considered when the ACOP was  approved. In that case you should be preparing a justification as to why you're not following the guidance, what other steps you've taken to mitigate the hazards, and why, so far as is 'reasonably practicable', you have mitigated the hazards to the extent that you are still complying with the law

Covid legislation is no different. There is a Law which you must adhere to, and there is guidance, which you should (not must) follow. If you follow the guidance (e.g. if you don't leave your village) then you have a pretty much absolute defence that you are complying with the Law.

You don't have to follow it, you might have a really good justification, (where you live isn't safe to exercise, the nearest park 5 miles away is a honey pot rammed with people, you've gone where you know it will be quiet), and that might well be accepted in the unlikely event you are 'engaged' by the police. You just need to be aware that the further you stray from the guidance, the more difficult it becomes to prove you are not breaking the law.

For what its worth I think the police would be better off dealing with house parties, huge groups in public or wandering round the shops without masks and not distancing etc. However I doubt Constable Notvery-Savage has made his way to a public carpark without being told to go there. If he's been told to go there then there has been considerable pressure put on the force by locals who are concerned by what is happening. I'm sure they'd be happier dealing with 'proper criminals’.

Ultimately we're all adults, and with the current situation with thousands dead and the NHS on the point of collapse I think we'd be better off not trying to find the absolute limits we can push things to, especially as its a temporary situation.

I'll be following the guidance as far as possible, and if I think I need to go beyond it to exercise I will, but I won't be getting outraged if I get challenged about it given the situation. If I think the police are wrong, or being overly zealous, or just being confrontational  I'll be challenging the FPN. Thats how the law has alway worked.

Post edited at 16:38
In reply to wintertree:

> I'm looking at fuel stations with a leary eye.  Most people using a car are going to need to refill before this crisis is over.  If you can use "pay at pump" or one of the other contactless payment systems, that's helpful.  For now, I can't justify to myself a trip to a fuel station where I pay indoors, partially as a result of driving for leisure.

Pretty much all of them have a night pay.  I'm inclined to think its use should be required at the moment.

In reply to Ridge:

> For what its worth I think the police would be better off dealing with house parties, huge groups in public or wandering round the shops without masks and not distancing etc. However I doubt Constable Notvery-Savage has made his way to a public carpark without being told to go there. If he's been told to go there then there has been considerable pressure put on the force by locals who are concerned by what is happening.

But then we end up in the situation where hysterical locals get to dictate what the Police do, despite it posing almost no risk to them (this harks back to people putting ridiculous signs up in villages trying to scare cyclists away).  That isn't right either.

As things stand, the most important thing appears to be preventing people going into each others' houses, the only real way to do that is very publically visible on-foot beat policing.  I've seen no evidence of that myself.

Post edited at 16:42
 Cobra_Head 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Why not concentrate on things that actually are illegal and actually are causing lots of spread, like "tea with Granny", not going for a country walk in a relatively local area?

Do you have figures for this?

There's that word again, rleatively.

> Close non-essential businesses.  Make it illegal for two people not from the same household to travel in the same vehicle for work purposes, other than emergency services.  Close schools properly - education can be caught up later.  Require a tighter level of control on numbers of people in shops.  Require petrol stations to serve only from the night hatch.  Put a 10 mile limit on travel from home.  Remove childcare bubbles other than for a list of specified key workers.  Make it illegal for children under the age of 16 to be out of the home without direct supervision from a parent or guardian, and penalise the parent if they are (they are mixing freely and without distancing all over the place).

All great, and well done.

> There's some ideas that would actually reduce cases, not slapping parking tickets on people for driving a few miles for a country walk.

Every little helps, surely.

> It must never be acceptable for the Police to enforce things that are not law, for any reason, ever.  That's how you end up with a police state.  Once it's acceptable now, it'll be acceptable later, too.

even at the cost of people's lives

> That doesn't mean people shouldn't choose to be stricter on themselves.  Good on people who do.

Well of course they should, but you only need to look at the almost infinite number of thread on here, to see how people will flex the guidance, to suit themselves, to be able to do what THEY want to. I'm not saying I don't understand it, but is not right and however small the risk, it's still a risk.

Bleating on here about how they're different and how they should be OK because they're only doing easy stuff, or they're good drivers, or........ Doesn't mean it's safe or OK.

There might be a few, who live next to a crag or are in walking distance, but count the posts.

Anyhow, once again it's going round in circles so I'm out too.

 Cobra_Head 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> But then we end up in the situation where hysterical locals get to dictate what the Police do, despite it posing almost no risk to them (this harks back to people putting ridiculous signs up in villages trying to scare cyclists away).  That isn't right either.

This is how, the villages the prevented the plague, made it work for them, all those year ago. The same procedure would work today.

> As things stand, the most important thing appears to be preventing people going into each others' houses, the only real way to do that is very publically visible on-foot beat policing.  I've seen no evidence of that myself.

If no one travels to the village, then the people in that village could in theory do what they wanted, it's only when the virus gets there it starts causing trouble. Test and Trace, is the idea that would have allowed us to do this, if it had worked of course.

Post edited at 17:06
 wercat 10 Jan 2021
In reply to pec:

> I think that, means we agree?

I think so.  put the most effort where it will do the most good

In reply to Neil Williams:

> As things stand, the most important thing appears to be preventing people going into each others' houses, the only real way to do that is very publically visible on-foot beat policing.  I've seen no evidence of that myself.

I don't disagree with that at all, in fact that's exactly what I'd like to see.

I haven't seen evidence of that myself, but I've also never seen evidence of Police handing out tickets for no good reason. All I see are media reports, and guess which out of thousands of interactions the media are desperate to publicise?

Post edited at 17:30
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Do you have figures for this?

No, but crowds in outdoor places have been reported over and over again without being the basis of a massive spike.

> even at the cost of people's lives

Yes, absolutely.  People have laid down their lives for freedom, democracy and the proper rule of law (i.e. not arbitrary and made-up) many times over the years.

If we need stricter measures, they need to be legislated for (which can be done very quickly), and then they can be enforced.  That is how our legal system works, and we must never, ever allow things to move away from that principle, however serious the emergency.

I've said repeatedly that the fix for this is a "distance from home" limit in law unless you can prove you need to go further for work purposes or because the nearest supermarket is not in that radius.  Clear, unambiguous and easy to enforce.

Post edited at 17:44
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> If no one travels to the village, then the people in that village could in theory do what they wanted, it's only when the virus gets there it starts causing trouble.

Of course, it's mostly already there.

> Test and Trace, is the idea that would have allowed us to do this, if it had worked of course.

Well, a right mess was made of that, wasn't it?

Post edited at 17:46
 Cobra_Head 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> No, but crowds in outdoor places have been reported over and over again without being the basis of a massive spike.

> Yes, absolutely.  People have laid down their lives for freedom, democracy and the proper rule of law (i.e. not arbitrary and made-up) many times over the years.

As long as it's not one of yours I presume.

The point still stands, we shouldn't need legislation, people are being dicks and they should think about others, rather than what they want to do.

 GrahamD 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I've said repeatedly that the fix for this is a "distance from home" limit in law unless you can prove you need to go further for work purposes or because the nearest supermarket is not in that radius.  Clear, unambiguous and easy to enforce.

It isn't a fix at all.  You've already put an ambiguity in your proposal with "unless".

How does your legislation allow a truck driver to take exercise or visit a shop if they are at the other end of the country and clearly more than 10 miles from home, for instance ?

In reply to Neil Williams:

> I've said repeatedly that the fix for this is a "distance from home" limit in law.  Clear, unambiguous and easy to enforce.

I guaranteed within 30 seconds of that law hitting the statute books someone will be emailing the police pointing out they live in a coastal location or next to an MOD range therefore the available area for exercise is substantally diminished, so could the police advise on an appropriately adjusted radius so their human rights aren't affected by this discrimination. (Plus they know the Police and Crime Comissioner, pay your wages and why aren't you catching real criminals).

In reply to GrahamD:

> It isn't a fix at all.  You've already put an ambiguity in your proposal with "unless".

Do you believe the majority of other European countries, which have implemented a rule of this kind (with varying distances), have got it wrong?  Why?

> How does your legislation allow a truck driver to take exercise or visit a shop if they are at the other end of the country and clearly more than 10 miles from home, for instance ?

You could add a specific exemption for people who, for reasons of their employment, are required to be away from home, applying only in the course of that employment.  That isn't that many people.

The key is that it's clear and unambiguous.  Easy to understand, easy to comply with, easy to enforce.

Post edited at 17:55
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> The point still stands, we shouldn't need legislation, people are being dicks and they should think about others, rather than what they want to do.

So what defines being a dick?  Doing something you disagree with despite it being of low risk, and in some cases of lower risk than taking exercise directly from home if you live in a high density area?

That's why we have laws.  Same for everyone.

 wercat 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> So what defines being a dick? 

something like this?

https://cumbriacrack.com/2021/01/09/four-men-from-out-of-area-rescued-from-car-stuck-in-snow-by-mountain-rescue/

word has it on the local ether they were attempting a bit of offroading

that is why it is the length (out of area/region) or nature of the journey and its likelihood of achieving transmission by human contact is paramount

In reply to wercat:

Yes, I'd agree that is being a dick.  I however don't believe that driving for 10 minutes for a walk round a lake is being a dick, however others on this thread do believe that it is.  The fact that the definition of "being a dick" varies from person to person is the main reason we need the law, and we need it to be clear in what it allows and how it is applied.  Otherwise it would just be "being a dick" that was what was illegal.

FWIW, Scotland and Wales are both more specific in the legislation (not just the guidance) with regard to exercise, so clearly they think it being vague isn't right either.

Scotland: in your local authority area only

Wales: from home only, no driving (except where a disability renders this impractical)

Post edited at 18:47
 DancingOnRock 11 Jan 2021
In reply to mysterion:

Well no. It’s against the law to travel outside of your tier area. So mwr72 is technically correct. However the whole of England is currently one tier area.  When we return to smaller areas the fines will start again. 
 

The reason no distance or time has been set is because people will see them as targets. Tell people that can drive 10miles and exercise for an hour and they’ll find a place that’s 11 miles away and hang around for an hour and a half. 
 

Much better to let people use their own judgment. 10% of people won’t leave their houses, 80% will go for a short 30min walk in the afternoon, 10% will completely take the piss and go on a 100mile bike ride, drive to a beauty spot etc. but not all of them everyday. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Not sure I'd say a long bike ride is taking the p#ss, not that I'm fit enough for that.  It will not bring you into contact with other people to any considerable extent - it's about the most solitary exercise you get, as if you're close enough to someone to spread it you've got a very high chance of crashing into them.

 DancingOnRock 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

>I however don't believe that driving for 10 minutes for a walk round a lake is being a dick.

It really depends. They’re not supposed to be socialising, they’re supposed to be exercising. The fact that they took a detour to drive to Starbucks which wasn’t on their direct route speaks volumes to me. We will see if their fine is cancelled anyway. I suspect many others will be cancelled but the ‘picnic’ aspect of this is one to watch. 

 DancingOnRock 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Unless you’re riding round in circles ‘100 miles’ isn’t local in my book. 
 

If you get hit by a car, you’ll end up lying in the road for 5 hours waiting for an ambulance. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It really depends. They’re not supposed to be socialising, they’re supposed to be exercising.

There is nothing saying you can't socialise with one other person while exercising - indeed it effectively explicitly says you can.  That may need to be banned (and it's sounding like it might be soon), but it does not break the current rules or guidance to do that.  Many people find a social aspect helps to motivate them.

> The fact that they took a detour to drive to Starbucks which wasn’t on their direct route speaks volumes to me. We will see if their fine is cancelled anyway. I suspect many others will be cancelled but the ‘picnic’ aspect of this is one to watch. 

If people going for takeaway coffees is an issue Starbucks needs to be closed.  Having things open that people aren't allowed to go to is tantamount to entrapment; any business people are not to be permitted to make a trip to should not be open.

Post edited at 12:06
 wercat 11 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

circumstances and intent are so important.   Having a hot drink with you could be a sign of getting up early to go for a walk before doing anything else to be out when things are at their quietest and so stay safer.  This may not be the case here but it can't be ruled out without checking.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Unless you’re riding round in circles ‘100 miles’ isn’t local in my book. 

True, but it poses almost no risk to anyone.  Interestingly this would be within the Welsh guidance provided you started and finished from home.  I'm starting to lean towards preferring that rule, to be honest.

> If you get hit by a car, you’ll end up lying in the road for 5 hours waiting for an ambulance. 

That could happen 5 minutes from home.  If we consider cycling to pose too great a risk, we need to ban cycling other than as a mode of transport for another permitted reason.

Post edited at 12:09
In reply to wercat:

> circumstances and intent are so important.   Having a hot drink with you could be a sign of getting up early to go for a walk before doing anything else to be out when things are at their quietest and so stay safer.  This may not be the case here but it can't be ruled out without checking.

Having a hot drink with you is utterly, utterly irrelevant to anything other than strict puritans.  It doesn't add considerably to the risk (no doubt it was bought drive-through).  It is as consequential as one brought from home or a bottle of water.

It might be that they intended to sit at a picnic bench and chat rather than walking at all (their dress might suggest that).  However, conspiracy to breach the COVID regulations is not itself an offence, so other than a chat about whether they were really taking the mick, there's not a lot Plod can do.  And having coffee[1] doesn't evidence that at all, though unsuitable dress for walking might.

[1] In those halcyon days of being able to work in an office (!) my usual lunchtime routine was to have something to eat in at Pret, Subway or whatever, then get a coffee and go for a walk for the rest of my lunch break.  That was definitely exercise; the coffee in my hand was of no relevance to it being exercise or not.

Post edited at 12:12
 AJM 11 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Well no. It’s against the law to travel outside of your tier area. So mwr72 is technically correct. However the whole of England is currently one tier area.

I don't think it ever was. I looked at the T4 legislation when it first came in for us and they had no distance or tier boundary concept in them. The guidance obviously very strongly steered you not to, but if you had a reason (one of the usual - exercise, work, etc etc) to be outside your home there were then no further geographic restrictions set out in law.

If you didn't have a reason, then it was illegal to be outside your home, so for example those who fled Tier 4 before Christmas to stay with family probably were breaking the law because that isn't a reasonable excuse set out in law, but they were in breach as soon as they left home not when they hit the Tier 4 boundary.

In reply to AJM:

> If you didn't have a reason, then it was illegal to be outside your home, so for example those who fled Tier 4 before Christmas to stay with family probably were breaking the law because that isn't a reasonable excuse set out in law, but they were in breach as soon as they left home not when they hit the Tier 4 boundary.

That one was even more confusing, wasn't it, in the sense that London wasn't actually in tier 4 at that point but was known to be moving into it?  So at that point it wasn't illegal, but once it changed they were then committing an offence?

One would think that that could have been prevented by drafting the law before it was announced, then it could go into force immediately and avoid this issue.

 AJM 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes, assuming most of them arrived by midnight the journey itself hadn't been illegal although their continued presence outside their homes (it was relative to primary residence not wherever they happened to be staying I thought) was.

In reply to AJM:

I believe that is correct.  Though while most of them will have known full well they were in the wrong, some of them may well not have done, and penalising them for having left before it came into force wouldn't be in line with the usual "Brits abroad need not come home immediately" type stuff.

Really, they should be looking for a way to make changes come into effect immediately.  Then the Police could have been at the ticket barrier turning people back.

Post edited at 12:43
 baron 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Having a hot drink with you is utterly, utterly irrelevant to anything other than strict puritans.  It doesn't add considerably to the risk (no doubt it was bought drive-through).  It is as consequential as one brought from home or a bottle of water.

> It might be that they intended to sit at a picnic bench and chat rather than walking at all (their dress might suggest that).  However, conspiracy to breach the COVID regulations is not itself an offence, so other than a chat about whether they were really taking the mick, there's not a lot Plod can do.  And having coffee[1] doesn't evidence that at all, though unsuitable dress for walking might.

> [1] In those halcyon days of being able to work in an office (!) my usual lunchtime routine was to have something to eat in at Pret, Subway or whatever, then get a coffee and go for a walk for the rest of my lunch break.  That was definitely exercise; the coffee in my hand was of no relevance to it being exercise or not.

In a time when people are literally taking their lives in their hands by going to work so that society can continue to function with some semblance of normality would it not be a good idea if everyone could show their support by being seen to be doing their bit and then a bit more?

It might not make any real difference to infection rates if I go for a stroll with my mate but it might reinforce the idea that we’re all in this together if I forego that pleasure for a short while.

Driving 5 miles via Starbucks to exercise might be well within the guidelines but it’s also taking the piss.

In reply to baron:

> In a time when people are literally taking their lives in their hands by going to work so that society can continue to function with some semblance of normality would it not be a good idea if everyone could show their support by being seen to be doing their bit and then a bit more?

> It might not make any real difference to infection rates if I go for a stroll with my mate but it might reinforce the idea that we’re all in this together if I forego that pleasure for a short while.

> Driving 5 miles via Starbucks to exercise might be well within the guidelines but it’s also taking the piss.

It's your decision if you want to exceed the strictness of the law and guidelines, but you must also accept, having made your own decision, that everyone else has an equal right to do that too within those constraints.

I don't subscribe to the "self-flagellation" theory you do, I just stick within the guidelines and law.

Doing something clearly within the guidelines and law isn't "taking the piss".  And this is why we need the law and the guidelines, because you think something I think is OK is taking the piss, and there might well be something you think is OK that I think is taking the piss.

Post edited at 12:51
 baron 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> It's your decision if you want to exceed the strictness of the law and guidelines, but you must also accept, having made your own decision, that everyone else has an equal right to do that too within those constraints.

> I don't subscribe to the "self-flagellation" theory you do, I just stick within the guidelines and law.

> Doing something clearly within the guidelines and law isn't "taking the piss".  And this is why we need the law and the guidelines, because you think something I think is OK is taking the piss, and there might well be something you think is OK that I think is taking the piss.

I can’t think of a single example of me needing to travel for exercise.

I can go out of my front door and walk or run along the pavement.

As can the vast majority of the population.

It might not be my first choice of exercise but it’ll do for now.

When the Chief Medical Officer is asking people to think if they even need to leave their homes I’ll stick with my self flagellation thanks.

 wercat 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

the hot drink had already been quoted as evidence why their action might be illegal.  It was only that evidential direction and value I was disputing.

 Richard Horn 11 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Why are people over and over and over discussing the exercise rules when CW + co have repeatedly said the risk of Covid transmission outdoors is negligible. 

Why are the police wasting their time / resources with this?

Post edited at 13:18
In reply to Richard Horn:

Because it's easier than enforcing the thing that's really causing problems - people going into each others' houses, I guess.

In reply to baron:

> When the Chief Medical Officer is asking people to think if they even need to leave their homes I’ll stick with my self flagellation thanks.

Well, I guess that so long as it gets you out of breath for 20 minutes, it would count as exercise

 baron 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Niall_H:

> Well, I guess that so long as it gets you out of breath for 20 minutes, it would count as exercise

😀

 jkarran 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Police overstepping their authority is NEVER good, regardless of what good may come from it.  It is dangerous.

Exactly. The Scotish government has been clear in defining 'local' when it has needed to (as have the Irish). Johnson's shower keep pushing this, dangerously and unfairly onto the police. If you want the law enforced, make it law, don't ask the police to enforce guidance.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

> Exactly. The Scotish government has been clear in defining 'local' when it has needed to (as have the Irish). Johnson's shower keep pushing this, dangerously and unfairly onto the police. If you want the law enforced, make it law, don't ask the police to enforce guidance.

Precisely.  Make the guidance and the law the same, make it stricter if necessary, make it absolute and unambiguous.

In any case, Bozza has, it seems, been spotted out cycling, so unless he resigns forthwith, he's just defined acceptable a bit

 fred99 11 Jan 2021
In reply to baron:

> Driving 5 miles via Starbucks to exercise might be well within the guidelines but it’s also taking the piss.

Maybe the main question should be;

Why are Starbucks outlets (and other similar businesses) allowed to be open in the first place ?

Fancy coffee is scarcely a critical item that we can't do without.

 Chris Reid 11 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

The courts were massively backlogged before the pandemic. Who knows what the backlog is like now!? I suspect that if you were to contest your fine it may take years to reach the courts.

In reply to fred99:

> Why are Starbucks outlets (and other similar businesses) allowed to be open in the first place ?

> Fancy coffee is scarcely a critical item that we can't do without.

I'm certainly leaning towards the idea that we should consider closing takeaways, as they mostly voluntarily did anyway in March.  Maybe still allow delivery, but the Uberliveroo bods would have to wait outside and the food be brought to the door.

The reason being that if you go to the supermarket you can buy a week's worth (of ready meals if you can't cook), whereas a takeaway only ever brings you one meal.  So takeaways encourage you to go out more.

Having said that, I bet they got the Starbucks from a drive through, and the risk there is close to zero, so maybe those aren't worth bothering about.  Notably Maccies have closed takeaway counters but kept drive-through, so I think they know what's going on there.  And of course they could have brought a thermal mug of tea instead, I often do do that if going out for a walk.

It's better to close businesses that aren't essential than to leave them open then start doing people who then go to them.  Even things like DIY sheds could offer a Screwfix style click and collect service for essential repair items only; it's not the time to be looking at a new kitchen.

And garden centres?  Wha?  At most they should be offering fence panels for sale for delivery (most people can't fit them in the car anyway).   That's pretty much the only thing you'd NEED from a garden centre, and possibly only then if it's blown down, you have kids and the neighbour has a dog (or vice versa).

Post edited at 15:51
 GrahamD 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I'm certainly leaning towards the idea that we should consider closing takeaways, as they mostly voluntarily did anyway in March.  Maybe still allow delivery, but the Uberliveroo bods would have to wait outside and the food be brought to the door.

I'm sure a whole transport and delivery and building sector will be right behind you, as will hospital workers.

In reply to GrahamD:

> I'm sure a whole transport and delivery and building sector will be right behind you, as will hospital workers.

They are all capable of buying stuff from supermarkets and e.g. making sandwiches.  If a lorry driver is eating takeaways for every meal I hate to think that's what's doing for his health.  Hospital workers can I'm sure order delivery when they get in or pop a microwave meal in the microwave.

I'm unconvinced that we should keep building (other than emergency repairs) and in-home services (same) going either.  Same with the housing market - that's based on going in and out of houses.  It can all wait a couple of months when vaccinations will allow some form of easing, if only back to "conventional" Tier 4.

Post edited at 15:56
 GrahamD 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

On a multi day drive on the motorway ? Surely getting a takeaway coffee from a garage is preferable to driving an artic to Sainsburys?

In reply to GrahamD:

> On a multi day drive on the motorway ? Surely getting a takeaway coffee from a garage is preferable to driving an artic to Sainsburys?

I could see sense in motorway services being a specific exception, as those are not generally set up for people to go to unless on a journey, and Police could hang around there to ensure those journeys were essential.  That doesn't require the Starbucks at my local "strip mall" being open - I challenge you to get an artic in there!

 DancingOnRock 11 Jan 2021
In reply to baron:

>Driving 5 miles via Starbucks to exercise might be well within the guidelines but it’s also taking the piss.

 

I think when you look at it in any detail the nearest Starbucks was 7 miles away and is in a business park on the outskirts of Ashby. It would have been a 10mile journey instead of a 5mile and they would have driven past plenty of other parks. 
 

Which isn’t really a problem legally. 

 DancingOnRock 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

 It says one reasonable excuse to leave your home might be exercise. You can exercise with one other from outside your household. 
 

Lots of exercise activities are difficult to do on your own. Some aren’t. And some may not be possible for people who may feel vulnerable on their own. 
 

It also says you may not meet up with people outside of your household to socialise. 
 

Remember these are ‘reasonable excuses’ not actually laws but guidance. I’m not entirely sure but suspect the guidance would be referred to in a court of law, if you leave your house without a ‘reasonable excuse’ you are breaking the law. It’s the same as the Highway Code or the Electrical Regs. There are laws and there’s guidance on how to comply with the laws.  

 Cobra_Head 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> So what defines being a dick?  Doing something you disagree with despite it being of low risk, and in some cases of lower risk than taking exercise directly from home if you live in a high density area?

Yes, this, for a period of six weeks why not?

> That's why we have laws.  Same for everyone.

Sadly Covid isn't the same for everyone, or peoples attempts to help stem it's spread, which is why we have loads of threads like this.

 Cobra_Head 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> No, but crowds in outdoor places have been reported over and over again without being the basis of a massive spike.

How do you know, these crowds might well take the virus to all corners of the UK.

 james mann 11 Jan 2021
In reply to mwr72:

> How long do you lot who can't follow the law want us to remain in lockdown because you're too selfish to take excersize at home, you know, maybe taking a walk from home instead of moving out of your area in your car because you think the law is ambiguous?

> Look up the word "MUST" in a legal context and stop claiming you don't understand the bloody rules.

Perhaps you should look up the word ‘exercise’?

 wercat 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

that indeed seems to be the case in Cumbria

We have had a monumentally massive spike since early December, starting with reports of the SE variant very very soon after it was reported down south.  We had an infection rate in the low 50s/100000 and by the end of the December it was up to 700 or so.

Post edited at 19:35
In reply to wercat:

> that indeed seems to be the case in Cumbria

The game does change when you go far enough from home that you'll have to patronise indoor businesses like supermarkets.  Though I suspect much of the recent moving-around of virus was caused not by tourists but rather by Christmas visits home.

 wercat 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

yes, precisely.  Reported tonight that the police caught people from as far away as Sheffield and Newcastle and somewhere further south at the weekend coming up to the Lakes, as well as someone who crossed the border, picked up a mate in Carlisle and went down the M6 looking for a Burger King!

In reply to wercat:

Whether legal or not, the mind boggles as to why anyone thinks those examples are OK!

 DancingOnRock 11 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Anyone want to take any bets on when the ‘with another’ part is taken away. 
 

My money is on; before the weekend. 

 Sandpiper 11 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

> Reported tonight that the police caught people from as far away as Sheffield and Newcastle and somewhere further south at the weekend coming up to the Lakes.....

As someone who can see the fine sweep of the south western quarter of Lakeland (only twenty miles away) from the beach at the end of my road, I'm starting to feel like a right mug for staying within my immediate local area.

 wintertree 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Sandpiper:

> As someone who can see the fine sweep of the south western quarter of Lakeland (only twenty miles away) from the beach at the end of my road, I'm starting to feel like a right mug for staying within my immediate local area.

Myself, I’ll take a clear conscience over a few trips out of area.  It’ll still be there in may.  It’s enough that I don’t feel like a mug.

Post edited at 23:05
 Tom V 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Sandpiper:

Beach at the end of your road? View of the Lakes?  

Some folk might count that as enough.

 jkarran 11 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Anyone want to take any bets on when the ‘with another’ part is taken away. My money is on; before the weekend. 

Depends whether the growth rates have started to roll over by then really and how severe the healthcare crunch is projected to be. If this is working I think they'll persevere as we are until it has brought hospital load under control or it stops working (variant becomes more dominant or public fatigue).

jk

 Sandpiper 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Tom V:

> Beach at the end of your road? View of the Lakes?  

> Some folk might count that as enough.

Yes, it is for me. Meanwhile there appears to be a free-for-all regarding travel in some places.
 

 GrahamD 12 Jan 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> Depends whether the growth rates have started to roll over by then really and how severe the healthcare crunch is projected to be. If this is working I think they'll persevere as we are until it has brought hospital load under control or it stops working (variant becomes more dominant or public fatigue).

I'm hoping they try properly enforcing existing rules before introducing new rules not to enforce.

 r0b 12 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

Merseyside has also had a huge spike, going from <100 per 100k to 800-900 per 100k in 5 weeks. The common factor here is probably that both Cumbria and Merseyside were in Tier 2 until 30th December, rather than crowds of people travelling for outdoor spaces...

In reply to GrahamD:

> I'm hoping they try properly enforcing existing rules before introducing new rules not to enforce.

It'd be nice if they came up with rules that were legally enforceable in the first place.

In reply to r0b:

> Merseyside has also had a huge spike, going from <100 per 100k to 800-900 per 100k in 5 weeks. The common factor here is probably that both Cumbria and Merseyside were in Tier 2 until 30th December, rather than crowds of people travelling for outdoor spaces...

Not only that but also a flaw in the structure of the Councils round there.  West Lancashire is de-facto Merseyside in terms of how people move around, which means that if the two are in different Tiers which has happened a few times now, there is a lot of cross-spread.  Really Merseyside and West Lancashire need to go in the same Tier, and similarly east Lancs with Preston and possibly even Manchester, and north Lancs with the south Lakes.

Or forget regional Tiers now the country is very similar throughout and just move the whole thing at once.

Post edited at 08:47
 GrahamD 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Ridge:

> It'd be nice if they came up with rules that were legally enforceable in the first place.

You don't know they haven't, until someone tests "reasonable excuse" in court.

Its a bugger for the police, though, because in *general* they won't try to be heavy handed in enforcement and will tend to give leeway (witness Spurs supporters last weekend) but people seem to want to jump on any leeway as a green light that its legal.

 jkarran 12 Jan 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

> I'm hoping they try properly enforcing existing rules before introducing new rules not to enforce.

The problem is they're deliberately vague. We have Cressida Dick on Today this morning, doubtless sent out to toughen up messaging then squirming when pressed on what the law actually means so as to avoid throwing the PM under a bus for his bike ride or pulling the rug from under her officers for not doing so. Enforceable law is clear explicit law and it isn't flouted by the PM.

jk

 didntcomelast 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Whilst I don’t disagree with your suggestion of a 10mile limit and currently practice the stay local guidelines,  I will throw this scenario into the ring. I am a home shopping delivery driver in the north east, my deliveries take me along a fair stretch of the Tyne valley from Gateshead up to Corbridge, visiting on average 20 homes in all the built up areas between per shift. Now I’m allowed to travel extensively daily with work but if I follow current guidance to the letter, on my day off I should only exercise locally from my front door.

Last week when we had a fair covering of snow in the higher areas I could have driven 10 miles from home to Consett and walked or skied alone over the fells. I didn’t.

My point is I’m far more likely to transmit Covid whilst working than I ever will by what I choose to do in my spare time. Also before it’s mentioned, if I were to have an accident whilst walking or skiing I would still probably end up in the same hospital as I would if I fell right outside my home, Co Durham, big county few hospitals! 

In reply to GrahamD:

> Its a bugger for the police, though, because in *general* they won't try to be heavy handed in enforcement and will tend to give leeway (witness Spurs supporters last weekend) but people seem to want to jump on any leeway as a green light that its legal.

Does that not serve to demonstrate taking the easier option?  Every last one of those Spurs fans was clearly and demonstrably breaking the law, yet none were fined.  Yet those two women were not breaking the law (as the Force has now admitted), but were fined.  Not only that, but the former had massively greater risk of spread than the latter.

What that shouts is that the Police will go for easy targets (because I don't doubt that trying to fine all those Spurs fans would have caused at least some violence), which is totally the wrong message.

Post edited at 10:09
In reply to didntcomelast:

> My point is I’m far more likely to transmit Covid whilst working than I ever will by what I choose to do in my spare time.

That, however, isn't how it works - it all adds up.  If you were choosing between work or the leisure activity, fine.  But you're not, you're doing the work (which is clearly essential) and the leisure activity.  Just doing the work is clearly a lower cumulative risk.

This is why the argument "pubs should open because schools are higher risk" is a fallacy (even though it's likely true that a COVID secure pub has less risk of spread than most secondary schools being operated as they were up until December), because you aren't going to keep your kids off school so you can go to the pub.  It's schools or both, and both will cause more total spread than just schools.

The way to think about it is that it's a very granular a-la-carte menu of different unrelated things, each has a price against it in terms of increase to R, you can pick as many as you like until you get to R=1, at which point you run out of money and growth becomes exponential again.

So it might be, for a gross oversimplification, that your job is worth an R of 0.8 and your leisure activity worth an R of 0.3.  Clearly the latter is lower than the former, but 0.8+0.3 = 1.1 - exponential growth.

Post edited at 10:12
 GrahamD 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> What that shouts is that the Police will go for easy targets (because I don't doubt that trying to fine all those Spurs fans would have caused at least some violence), which is totally the wrong message.

This is the case whether the law says "reasonable excuse" or "10 miles", though.

The police are damned if they do, damned if they don't at the moment.

 r0b 12 Jan 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> Enforceable law is clear explicit law and it isn't flouted by the PM.

If you mean his bike ride there was absolutely nothing wrong with that under the law. The only thing "wrong" was hypocrisy after Priti Patel and Matt Hancock went on record saying that the police were right to fine the two ladies who went for the coffee walk.

In reply to wintertree:

> Myself, I’ll take a clear conscience over a few trips out of area.  It’ll still be there in may.  It’s enough that I don’t feel like a mug.

I think it's easy for us with space around us. 

Not sure our viewpoint or mental state would be the same if we'd spent the last 10 months in an inner city 6th floor 1 bed flat. 

 Toccata 12 Jan 2021
In reply to jkarran:

Didn’t come across well did she? Tried very hard not to take on the ‘it’s not illegal but we don’t want you doing it’, eventually cracked, sent out the message that the police might fine you for doing something that is not against the law then backed off again. 
 

Deliberate obfuscation is a cowardly way to lead.

In reply to Toccata:

She is just a nasty piece of work, and Hancock was just being a yes-man as he tends to.  (Also because he is medically motivated he wants stronger restrictions than Bozza will let him have).

Post edited at 11:08
In reply to GrahamD:

> The police are damned if they do, damned if they don't at the moment.

That being the case they could start by doing what is right, namely enforcing (a) things that are definitely against the law (plenty of people are doing things that are definitely against the law at the moment), and, given limited capacity, within those (b) things that are likely to cause considerable spread.

Those two women were neither of those things, which is why it was such an utterly ridiculous thing to do that has, once again, done their reputation a lot of harm.

Post edited at 11:12
 didntcomelast 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Don’t disagree, I perhaps didn’t explain myself properly. What I was trying to say was if I can travel extensively whilst at work meeting lots of people, why if I were to travel 10/15 miles in my leisure time to exercise alone I could be classed as breaking the law/guidance. I know the first is work related and necessary, but you could then say that because I do a risky job, in terms of spreading the virus, I shouldn’t exercise out of work? to reduce the cumulative risk. 

In reply to didntcomelast:

The effect is more "overall" than one individual, unless you do something that turns you into a superspreader.  So it's more that we allow work plus fewer leisure activities rather than work plus more leisure activities, if you see what I mean.

That said, if your work renders you much more likely to contract the virus (e.g. if you worked in peoples' homes rather than just dumping shopping outside their door), you may want to adapt your leisure activities accordingly.

Post edited at 11:18
 Toccata 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I wouldn’t call her nasty, more someone trying to walk a line between a Government of cowardly appeasers and the rest of the country who would like to see the guidance codified so that boundaries are clear and enforceable.

In reply to GrahamD:

> You don't know they haven't, until someone tests "reasonable excuse" in court.

The issue is you don't appear to need a 'reasonable excuse' to exercise. The way the law appears to have been drafted seems to state that being outside for the purpose of exercise is an 'exemption', with no requirement to prove that the distance you've travelled or the time you've spent outside is 'reasonable'.

> Its a bugger for the police, though, because in *general* they won't try to be heavy handed in enforcement and will tend to give leeway (witness Spurs supporters last weekend) but people seem to want to jump on any leeway as a green light that its legal.

Absolutely, they can't win.

 DancingOnRock 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Ridge:

>The issue is you don't appear to need a 'reasonable excuse' to exercise.

 

Are you sure about that. 
 

I thought the law only says what you can’t do. ie makes certain activities illegal. It doesn’t say what you can do.

So it’s illegal to leave your house without a good reason. It’s illegal for certain businesses to open. 

I’ve tried looking through the laws but it’s heavy going finding the actual section.

In reply to Ridge:

> The issue is you don't appear to need a 'reasonable excuse' to exercise. The way the law appears to have been drafted seems to state that being outside for the purpose of exercise is an 'exemption', with no requirement to prove that the distance you've travelled or the time you've spent outside is 'reasonable'.

A "reasonable excuse" to exercise?  That would be ridiculous and get into all sorts of silly debates about whether given exercise was reasonable or not.  It's like some people on here like ambiguity.

The way to go is to determine what the limits are and write them specifically and clearly into law, like very near to every other country (including Scotland and Wales) has done.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> >The issue is you don't appear to need a 'reasonable excuse' to exercise.

> Are you sure about that. 

> I thought the law only says what you can’t do. ie makes certain activities illegal. It doesn’t say what you can do.

It doesn't need to.  If if it isn't illegal, you can do it.

 DancingOnRock 12 Jan 2021
In reply to MG:

I’ve found it. 
 

It’s under the Tier 4 regulations. 
 

Exercise is an exception. There are no laws about staying local or how many times you can go out or how long you can go out for. 
 

All that remains is to determine whether people are actually exercising. If they’re not exercising and are socialising then they’re breaking the law. 
 

The guidance is purely on how we should behave as responsible people. Unfortunately there’s no law against being a selfish tw*t. Although society may well judge you. 
 

It is rather confusing because the government website isn’t set out with separate exceptions and guidance. So some of the exceptions appear to be guidance. 

Post edited at 12:27
 didntcomelast 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams: That opens a whole can of worms for those people who do have to go into peoples homes on a daily basis doesn’t it.

I don’t ‘dump’ shopping outside peoples homes, I am far more professional than that, I engage customers in conversation bearing in mind some of them get no outside contact other than from delivery people, so we provide more than a delivery service. I also do go into some customers homes, very elderly or disabled people often cannot manage to move their shopping from the doorstep into their kitchens so whilst every precaution is taken the risks are raised.

Taking what you suggest regarding Adapting leisure activities accordingly, I suspect many District health workers and carers who visit vulnerable people would be well pleased if they should have to stop their one period of exercise a day because of the increased Covid transfer risk whilst those who are able to work from home ( and still receive home shopping deliveries) can walk/run/cycle to their hearts content (once a day). 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

The number of times thing is a bit silly to be honest.  If that was legislated you get into stupid situations like if I went for a run first thing I would then potentially need to drive to the shop if I later needed to go.  And someone walking the dog for 20 minutes twice a day is not posing a higher risk than someone going out once for a 3 hour bike ride.

Post edited at 12:36
 DancingOnRock 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

It’s not really about what risk each individual activity poses. It’s the simple fact that people should be isolating. Full stop. It’s not down to individuals to decide whether they think their activity is risky or not. 
 

The exercise element is purely to stop people who can’t leave the house for other reasons getting ‘cabin fever’.

I wonder how many people never do any exercise. Drive to work, sit at a desk, drive home, watch TV. At least 30% judging by the state of the health of the nation. Now all of a sudden everyone needs to go for a daily walk. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The exercise element is purely to stop people who can’t leave the house for other reasons getting ‘cabin fever’.

I don't agree.  And at the start it was put very clearly that that wasn't why.  It was seen as a public-health opportunity.

> I wonder how many people never do any exercise. Drive to work, sit at a desk, drive home, watch TV. At least 30% judging by the state of the health of the nation. Now all of a sudden everyone needs to go for a daily walk. 

And that is a bad thing because?

 DancingOnRock 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

>And that is a bad thing because?

People should get more exercise. Would have thought that was obvious. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> >And that is a bad thing because?

> People should get more exercise. Would have thought that was obvious. 

I was questioning why it was a bad thing that people who don't normally exercise now want to do so.  If they start, good.  They might continue.

You've also got a considerable number of people who normally walk to the station/bus stop, train/bus to work, walk to work at the other end, who are now doing no "built in" exercise to their day.  They could I guess walk to the supermarket, but that would mean more, smaller shops = more risk - better to go by car and get 2 weeks' worth in one go.  Being inside a shop is a far greater risk than exercising outdoors.

Post edited at 13:07
 DancingOnRock 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

>I was questioning why it was a bad thing that people who don't normally exercise now want to do so.  If they start, good.  They might continue.

 

oh. Yes. Indeed. It was a statement not a judgement. 
 

People drive to the station. That ‘built in exercise’ is minute. 

Post edited at 13:09
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> People drive to the station. 

Some people do.  Some people walk and some cycle.

When I commuted to London I had over an hour of exercise built into my day - 15 minutes cycle to the station, 45 minutes walk (with a coffee - ha! ) at the other end.  Surprisingly many people do that.  You see a lot of people in suits and trainers on the train, that's why, they take their smart shoes to put on at work.

Post edited at 13:10
 Cobra_Head 12 Jan 2021
In reply to MG:

> It doesn't need to.  If if it isn't illegal, you can do it.


Which is why we have soaring rates of infection.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Which is why we have soaring rates of infection.

To which the answer is to tighten the law.

 Cobra_Head 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Sandpiper:

> As someone who can see the fine sweep of the south western quarter of Lakeland (only twenty miles away) from the beach at the end of my road, I'm starting to feel like a right mug for staying within my immediate local area.


You shouldn't, but you've highlighted one of the problems of people doing the maximum they can, other people think, "why should I? Look at all this going on", meanwhile the hospitals are running out of oxygen and the nursing staff are under greater and grater pressure.

So well done to you, and thank you, on behalf of my sister, who's one of the people having to look after some very very sick people.

 Ramblin dave 12 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

FWIW, there are some interesting thoughts here from an infectious disease researcher and public health advisor on why shaming people for going outside too much or for the wrong reasons does very little good and quite possibly significant harm:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348771251758784517.html

Also this about how the focus on individual adherence to the rules might be distracting us from structural factors that are a lot more relevant to actually dealing the pandemic:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/07/pandemic-fatigue-how-adherence-to-covid-19-regulations-has-been-misrepresented-and-why-it-matters/

Maybe part of the reason that we aren't seeing more stringent or clearly worded restrictions on this sort of stuff - even in the guidance, which has less need to be watertight than the law - is that precisely how and where people are excercising just isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things compared to (eg) the construction industry and manufacturing still running, garden centres and estate agents still operating and so on?

Post edited at 14:13
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Maybe part of the reason that we aren't seeing more stringent or clearly worded restrictions on this sort of stuff - even in the guidance, which has less need to be watertight than the law - is that precisely how and where people are excercising just isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things compared to (eg) the construction industry and manufacturing still running, garden centres and estate agents still operating and so on?

I would agree that genuinely is the case, to be honest.  Even with "support bubbles", you're better off going for a long walk with them than having a cup of tea in their house (which is in that case allowed).

There are far more businesses we could close that would have far more effect than messing round the edges with exactly where you can go for a walk.

A notable thing is that a local chain of garden centres has just announced its voluntary closure - which is (in a way) in line with March, as most of the things that were stricter than now were voluntary, the law is very, very similar.

Post edited at 14:19
 Sandpiper 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

The view from my beach includes Black Combe and the surrounding moorland, the Scafells, Bowfell and the Crinckles, and the Coniston Fells, with Pillar peeping through a gap and the Fairfield horseshoe off to one side. With the sandy estuary in the foreground backed by mountains it reminds me very much of the Kyle of Tongue and certainly looks more like the Scottish Highlands than Lakeland.

Although there's very little snow left on the south western fells it still looked stunning at sunrise this morning. So frustrating.........but I'll still be staying local.

 DancingOnRock 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

As she says it’s easy to see. It’s easy for the press to see.

From my point of view though, if people aren’t socially distancing outdoors, staying local and are hanging around in large groups, what else are they not-doing?

And as one poster says upthread it creates an environment of jealousy and people start to wonder, ‘why am I bothering if no one else is?’

Its very complex. 

Post edited at 15:14
 Fat Bumbly2 12 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I may have driven to the station, but I did not have a car waiting for me at the other end - so a brisk walk uphill  was required for 20mins (racing the bell). 

Always the hassle with trains - getting to and from two stations.

 jkarran 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Toccata:

> Didn’t come across well did she? Tried very hard not to take on the ‘it’s not illegal but we don’t want you doing it’, eventually cracked, sent out the message that the police might fine you for doing something that is not against the law then backed off again. 

I didn't catch all of it, I had dash out as the squirming became almost audible. I felt rather sorry for her to be honest, Johnson's jaunt and the need to not undermine her officers left her sounding compromised. Johnson should have taken this on himself.

jk

In reply to Sandpiper:

> The view from my beach 

Think yourself blessed to have a beach to walk along.

In reply to jkarran:

> Johnson should have taken this on himself.

Ha ha. That coward...? He'll be in a fridge somewhere.

Dick was put in an invidious position. And her responses therefore just didn't hang together. BBC news now stressing only one part of her comments, and not the 'do what you think is reasonable' bit.

Of course the simple guidance is 'keep away from other people'. Enforcing that...?

 GrahamD 12 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

Actually, it's even simpler.  Stay at home.

 wercat 12 Jan 2021
In reply to r0b:

that is possible but did you actually see what it was like up here in the weeks running up to Christmas?  Crazy - even on Christmas day Ullswater had laybys full of occupied camper vans.  My wife has a work colleague who comes from Keswick and he said it was extremely busy as well.   They disapeared overnight when we entered tier 4.  I have absolutely no doubt it was the behaviour of people ignoring tier boundaries that caused the rocket here.

 fred99 12 Jan 2021
In reply to jkarran:

>.......Johnson should have taken this on himself.

Knowing Johnson's previous form, he'll not be anywhere that he can be questioned in the next week or two.

Wouldn't be surprised if he sends a sacrificial lamb to stand in at PMQ's.

In reply to fred99:

He'll reappear if the lockdown is tightened, but fingers crossed it may not be necessary, cases have been coming down for 2 days now.

 fred99 12 Jan 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

> Actually, it's even simpler.  Stay at home.

I have been doing that for some time. Unfortunately I am running out of milk, so at some point tomorrow I will need to go out and buy some at the garage round the corner - might even pick up a bar of chocolate when waiting to pay (but certainly not any coffee !!).

Then next week I have the real "running of the gauntlet" when I'll run out of food and will have to go to the supermarket. I'll make sure that I get at least a month's worth, because I really do not want to go there too often.

(And don't anyone go on about getting it delivered, because that is really not on - they're fully booked up).

In reply to Ridge:

This is important, people need to remember that you need a reasonable reason to leave home, exercise, essential shopping, work and several other things are reasonable reasons. However if you are stopped and asked to present your reasonable reason, the closer that reason is to the guidance, the more likely it is that the activity will be considered reasonable and therefore legal.

 Cobra_Head 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> To which the answer is to tighten the law.


That's one answer, another which we can all do now, is not be dicks.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> That's one answer, another which we can all do now, is not be dicks.

> Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I don't disagree, though I repeat my point that what you consider to be "being a dick" may not be the same as what I do, nor what others on the thread do, which is why we have laws in the first place and not just a law against "being a dick".

I suspect we would both agree that committing murder is "being a dick"*, but suspect we may differ on opinions on the use of motor vehicles for exercise during COVID, for example.

However, many people don't work like that, and so to control behaviour on that macro level we have laws and enforcement.

* Though there are even people who won't agree with that.  For instance if you go to some parts of eastern Europe, most notably Albania, avenging wrongs against your family is *not* considered "being a dick" by many people.

Post edited at 17:47
In reply to The New NickB:

> This is important, people need to remember that you need a reasonable reason to leave home, exercise, essential shopping, work and several other things are reasonable reasons. However if you are stopped and asked to present your reasonable reason, the closer that reason is to the guidance, the more likely it is that the activity will be considered reasonable and therefore legal.

That was my initial understanding of the situation, and that's normally the relationship between the law and guidance, but the way the Tier 4 regs are worded it seems extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute someone because their exercise location is not 'reasonable'.

The thing is, to establish legal precent takes time, something we don't have.

In reply to GrahamD:

> Actually, it's even simpler.  Stay at home.

Except that there are necessary exceptions to that. That's the entire problem...

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/the_pub/should_we_all_be_thanking_boris_now-729965

Post edited at 18:41
In reply to Ridge:

I am inclined to believe that that is quite deliberate and because they don't want people prosecuting for how far they go for exercise, because it really makes very little difference once the new variant is everywhere.

To me, it reads as - you can't leave home unless you have a reasonable excuse, and that that list of things are automatically a reasonable excuse, but there might be other reasonable excuses as well which would be at Police and (if applicable) Court discretion.  The scope for prosecution if you're doing an item in that list would essentially be that you hadn't really left home for that reason, e.g. going for a long drive with a short walk.  I believe the "common sense" being used last time was that the walk needed to be at least as long as the drive (in time).

It's quite common to see this sort of thing in law generally - you can't do X unless you have a reasonable excuse; a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses is as follows, and precedent would tend to add additional ones if they were missed.

If they wanted this sort of "woolly" prosecution to be possible, they would surely have written "a reasonable distance from home", or "as close to home as possible", or something more precisely defined, after "exercise".

Normally precedent would develop over the years, but for a law intended to last only a couple of months there is no scope for precedent to really be applied, so that can't have been the intention.  It seems clear that it is written to define the leaving home (and remaining outside home) as the thing that has to be for a reasonable excuse, not precisely where you are.

Post edited at 19:04
In reply to Neil Williams:

> If they wanted this sort of "woolly" prosecution to be possible, they would surely have written "a reasonable distance from home", or "as close to home as possible", or something more precisely defined, after "exercise".

That's my thinking too, and it allows the police and public take the flak when it all goes wrong.

Post edited at 19:09
 Billhook 12 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

> I could drive 60 miles and never get more than single figure miles from home!

Is your navigation that bad??

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> That's one answer, another which we can all do now, is not be dicks.

Certainly don't want to be a Dick; you'll get hauled into R4 to try to present two completely opposing arguments...

 Cobra_Head 12 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

This seems pretty easy to understand and maybe it should have been a slogan for quite sometime.

ACT as if you've got it.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

It's Schroedinger's virus - you have to act as if you have it (so you don't spread it) and as if you haven't got it (so you don't catch it).

I'm pretty sure that slogan has popped up a few times.

 wintertree 12 Jan 2021
In reply to summo:

> I think it's easy for us with space around us. 

> Not sure our viewpoint or mental state would be the same if we'd spent the last 10 months in an inner city 6th floor 1 bed flat. 

Many years ago I spent 3 months living in a bed sit in Bromley on a work placement.  I went for daily walks from the door of the property and found plenty of routes and open space.  Similar when I’ve spent weeks at a time in central Glasgow, and short stays in other cities.  The only time I’ve found this impossible is in more modern, car-centric US suburbs.

I am disappointed that the early push in the pandemic to get a lot of the private enclosed parks in London opened to the public apparently went nowhere.  

I think the “once per day” rule of the first and current lockdowns was/is way tougher on city flat residents than the travel rules, along with simply “being outside” not being a valid excuse.  It’s not inability to travel out of the area that would bother me living in a flat, it would be getting told I’m only allowed outside once per day.  Awful for adults, inexcusable for children.

In reply to wintertree:

> I think the “once per day” rule of the first and current lockdowns was/is way tougher on city flat residents than the travel rules, along with simply “being outside” not being a valid excuse.  It’s not inability to travel out of the area that would bother me living in a flat, it would be getting told I’m only allowed outside once per day.  Awful for adults, inexcusable for children.

At least we didn't do what the Spaniards did and ban children from leaving the house completely for something like 2 months.  I have one phrase for that, and it's "institutional child abuse", particularly as many of them are flat-dwellers so no garden.  Totally unnecessary and seriously damaging.

I think the Welsh have done better with this one - exercise starts and ends from the home, but you can go as many times as you like.  Literally nothing is gained by making people take one 1 hour walk instead of 2 30 minute ones.

Post edited at 23:20
 wercat 13 Jan 2021

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.