Loading Notifications...

Guess which police force is making headlines agai

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Luke90 08 Jan 2021

Yep, Derbyshire Police are setting the benchmark for harsh Covid enforcement again:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

I think they've overstepped on this one. But in any case, it's worth anyone in this area being aware of the approach they're taking.

6
 mrphilipoldham 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

I was wrong, I was expecting Police Scotland to be the answer. 

1
In reply to Luke90:

I agree. It does help make up my mind not to try driving the 5 miles out to Burbage to go for a nice walk with my five year old daughter though. 

IT'S A TRAAAAAAAP.

2
 elliot.baker 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Surely there must be more to it than that - I've always thought the police said they "engage, explain, encourage and only enforce as a last resort" as per this College of Policing guidance. 

https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/COVID-19/Pages/Understanding-the-Law.aspx

I'd never expect to step out of the car and be fined on the spot without being given the option to just go home.

Also - find it hilarious that Chatsworth's gardens and the tearoom at Edensor appear to still be open from the websites - of course this is only for exercise for locals, and the tearooms is only open for takeaways. Presumably so people can get water to rehydrate after running around the Gardens and estate, not so they can stroll around the estate with a cappuccino (to exercise, of course)?

2
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Is it because they live in a different county?  Were they actually exercising or were they sitting around drinking coffee? 

I mean I think it's well on the harsh side, but I do wonder if there is more to the story. 

FWIW Ashby has plenty of open space to exercise in.  There is an enormous park and the castle grounds, and it is a tiny town surrounded by fields, so I guess driving wasn't necessary, but I really don't think walking round a reservoir with a cuppa is a massive Covid risk.  I suppose you could argue that buying the coffee (if they did) put the drive through staff at risk.  Again fairly minimal.  

1
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to elliot.baker:

I don't see much difference between having a bottle of water or a cup of coffee when out for a walk, except that in this weather I'm more likely to take coffee.  In a sippy travel cup so as not to picnic.   

1
 Luke90 08 Jan 2021
In reply to elliot.baker:

I thought the same thing initially but Derbyshire Police are quoted in the article defending their position without adding any extra context. They had their chance to clarify anything misleading or add missing details. They seem to be taking the line that driving for exercise simply isn't permitted and maintaining they can fine people for that alone. And they're not disputing that their officer said taking a drink turned it into an impermissible picnic rather than exercise.

Even as someone who thoroughly supports the lockdown (and thinks it was clearly weeks overdue), I think they've gone off the deep end here. God knows how badly it will go down with people who already resent lockdown.

2
 Luke90 08 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Were they actually exercising or were they sitting around drinking coffee?

Sounds like the police were already there when the women arrived and fined them straight away.

1
In reply to Luke90:

I agree with the police in principle, people shouldn't be driving for exercise (unless in very limited circumstances) and shouldnt be hanging around. My rationale is about, regardless of how miniscule, that there may be a slight increased risk of accidents; and one should not be travelling out of one's area. 

Although my second point is, is 5 miles really out of area, car or not? Plus, why the hell didn't they walk to the destination and walk back? It would make  a lovely 10 mile round trip.

EDIT: Seriously, my local walks are nothing like as good as these people have. I'd love a drive out but feel really uncomfortable in doing so.

Post edited at 12:37
46
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

On the face of it this looks completely wrong, at most it should have been a talking to, if what they say is true, but I'll reserve judgement until the facts are known. Libertarians with an agenda have been known to lie and exaggerate and the correct response for someone with no agenda would have been to go through the police complaints route first and the media afterwards.

Post edited at 12:29
11
In reply to Luke90:

> Sounds like the police were already there when the women arrived and fined them straight away.

If you were trying to convert pragmatic supporters of the restrictions into anti-lockdown activists this would be a really good way of going about it.

2
 mondite 08 Jan 2021
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Although my second point is, is 5 miles really out of area, car or not? Plus, why the hell didn't they walk to the destination and walk back? It would make  a lovely 10 mile round trip.

Depends on how much time you have plus what the roads are like. I know several roads round here I wouldnt want to try walking on.

 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Which is why it's so important we are sure its true.

 wercat 08 Jan 2021
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

it makes my mind up that diktat rules and diktat policing are either effing stupid or effing fascist

4
 Enty 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

On a serious note, it's shit like this that simply makes people turn against the rules and stop bothering.

E

2
 wercat 08 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

if they'd been carrying guns would the effing police from that area have doffed their caps and let them go about their lawful business in their part of village, town or city?

2
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

I wonder if it is a bit of a class issue? This is very much supposition, and I expect to be accused of inverse snobbery, but having seen the pictures of the women from Ashby in their  £100 designer wellies, and their £3 peppermint tea I do wonder if they were a bit rude and entitled which wouldn't go down so well with the more down to earth South Derbyshire police?  

I haven't had anything to do with them since lockdown, but my experiences with Derbyshire Police in general is that they are very much straight talking Northern types (yes I know it is in the Midlands really) who are fine with you if you are straight with them.  

I'd guess that (rightly or wrongly) if I turned up to that carpark, saw the police, they said why are you driving, should have been closed to home, that "sorry, I see your point, I won't do it again, I'm off home now" might not have ended up with a fine, whereas arguing with them would.  

16
 David Riley 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Perhaps they'd sat together in one of the cars to drink the coffee ?   However, although I would really love to be a police supporter.  They have been appalling almost every time I've had contact with them.

2
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to mondite:

The area they live is full of lovely enormous parks and footpaths into open countryside.  No need to walk on roads.  

1
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

No they'd have had the armed response team out 😂

Oh you mean shootings for sport....

In reply to mondite:

> Depends on how much time you have plus what the roads are like. I know several roads round here I wouldnt want to try walking on.

Which is why I said in specific circumstances it should be allowed but others are just doing as they please, as always,  which is why we find ourselves where we are.

The walks around their homes are pretty good I believe but some will be more local to be absolutely sure.

 wercat 08 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

though I'd argue that rather than fining them if attitude was the problem perhaps they should just have made life a bit awkward, keep them hanging around for an hour or two as an attitude adjuster?

2
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Yes there really isn't any need to drive from Ashby.  I could understand it if they were in a city somewhere.  However I think Derbyshire Police have decided to take a hard line, and in some ways I do think fair enough to them. 

Given the areas they cover and the cities that surround Derbyshire I can see that their priority is to keep their own residents happy, and the people of Derbyshire may well not want everyone from Manchester Sheffield Nottingham Leicester and so on driving into their countryside. 

It may look like a PR own goal to us, but local residents might be pleased.  

Who knows. 

27
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

Would you want to listen to that pair moaning for an hour or 2?! 😂

1
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

> I agree. It does help make up my mind not to try driving the 5 miles out to Burbage to go for a nice walk with my five year old daughter though. 

Then in that case it's done exactly what Derbyshire Police wanted.  It's got the message out.  Loud and clear.  

3
In reply to Luke90:

To add some sort of context, Foremark is a very very popular spot with walkers, picnickers and the like in normal times. During lockdown 1 it was rammed daily and caused all sorts of problems as folk were parking on the main road when car parks were full or closed. If this headline stops folks from going to Foremark then it is justified. 
It isn’t about going for a walk around Foremark but driving to get there. If this headline prevents 1000 visitors during 1 week then that is 1000’s of miles of driving prevented. I don’t know what the stats are but obviously keeping cars of the road will reduce the likelyhood of accidents thus reducing pressures on the NHS and emergency services.

Im not saying it is right or wrong but during lockdown 1, everyone wanted clarification of one point or another. Well now we have it. Don’t travel to exercise! 

(Foremark was local to me for many years so I do know the area well)

9
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

The Scottish rules are extremely clear.  The English rules are open to interpretation.  

 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to wilkie14c:

Exactly.  Derbyshire police have a lot of those hotspots to deal with. 

If people do want to drive to somewhere avoid the obvious hotspots.  

2
In reply to marsbar:

I'm thinking on similar lines. Although you do get the odd (usually inexperienced) copper who starts going OTT, the majority of interactions I've had with the police have been polite, and on the one occasion I spent a night in the cells they were spot on, (and took the piss about our stupidity).

Going down the middle class “I pay your wages and I'm a personal friend of the Police and Crime Commissioner” or the more lower class “F**k off I know my f***ing rights you f***ing ****” tends not to be a smart move on the whole.

1
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

It's a bit of a no win situation.  A lot of people who are following the rules are complaining that the rules aren't being enforced.  

From that point of view this is an easy way for Derbyshire police to prove that they are enforced the rules.  Park up in a honey pot car park and wait for someone with a "picnic" from across the border, who drove past several nice walking spots to get there.  

Even the place where they got the Starbucks is right next to a nature trail and walks.  

1
 Timmd 08 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Would you want to listen to that pair moaning for an hour or 2?! 😂

Because they have expensive wellies? 

1
 wercat 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Ridge:

that's been my experience, mostly.  I particularly remember a policeman who turned up after I'd had a mishap on an oily twisty bit of road beside Ullswater.

"Hello, I'm PC Hope and that's the only Hope you've got today ...."

 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Timmd:

Yes I know, I'm being prejudiced.  I'm not as nice as you. 

However there is usually some truth behind every stereotype, and if you mix the expensive wellies with the goes immediately to the papers, and the I know my rights I didn't do anything wrong, I reckon earache may result.  

2
 Luke90 08 Jan 2021
In reply to David Riley:

> Perhaps they'd sat together in one of the cars to drink the coffee ?

The women's account isn't compatible with that and the police statement in the article suggests they don't disagree with the way it was presented.

 Timmd 08 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Yes I know, I'm being prejudiced.  I'm not as nice as you. 

> However there is usually some truth behind every stereotype, and if you mix the expensive wellies with the goes immediately to the papers, and the I know my rights I didn't do anything wrong, I reckon earache may result.  

I was just wondering, you should hear the narrative of my dark side which I work not to act upon  

I'm torn, you know, because I can see what you mean, but laws being clearly and accurately applied is important too. I'm not sure if a hot drink equals a picnic, and they were sticking to exercising with only one member from another household while outdoors, which makes me think that they could have a point, and 5 miles is close enough to feel local to many people.

If it is as described, even if they would be annoying and entitled, I think they could have a point, which is the principle of laws (and all that jazz)...

Post edited at 13:37
In reply to marsbar:

> Yes I know, I'm being prejudiced.  I'm not as nice as you. 

> However there is usually some truth behind every stereotype, and if you mix the expensive wellies with the goes immediately to the papers, and the I know my rights I didn't do anything wrong, I reckon earache may result.  

I might be wrong with the new terminology, are you describing what might now be called a 'Karen'?

Post edited at 13:31
3
 rj_townsend 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

My understanding is that the fixed penalty can be refused and they can choose to argue to case in front of the magistrate court where it is either overturned or upheld, at which point the fine is likely to be higher, plus costs. If they're genuinely so baffled and incensed I suggest they take that route.

If they do, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I suspect the fine will be upheld.

2
 wercat 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Timmd:

I agree with the Met saying they will impose penaltied for Obvious, Wilful and Serious breaches and I simply don't find those criteria all met here

 msjhes2 08 Jan 2021

As Peak local all I can say is well done Derbyshire Police.   Driving via Starbucks for a leisurely walk is hardly in the spirit of lockdown.    Mind you neither are the big groups of cyclists that are still riding out to peak or the second homes still being visited.

27
 Blanche DuBois 08 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> I wonder if it is a bit of a class issue? This is very much supposition,

It's not just "very much" it's entirely supposition.

 > and I expect to be accused of inverse snobbery

For pretty good reason I'd say.  Add in a healthy doze of misogyny - looks like you believe women aren't allowed to exhibit wealth.  

10
 Blanche DuBois 08 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Yes I know, I'm being prejudiced.  I'm not as nice as you. 

> However there is usually some truth behind every stereotype, and if you mix the expensive wellies with the goes immediately to the papers, and the I know my rights I didn't do anything wrong, I reckon earache may result.  

Prat.

18
 Timmd 08 Jan 2021
In reply to msjhes2: Driving via Starbucks before a walk isn't specifically disallowed, though. If it's as simple as them taking separate cars, and exercising outside, and being found to be having a picnic (which they weren't), they're possibly just being fined because the police 'felt they were doing the wrong thing'. It's not a good place for the country to be, legally speaking.

Post edited at 14:13
1
 Timmd 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois: marsbar is a female.

1
 mrphilipoldham 08 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

I was referring to the video doing the rounds of the Scottish bursting in to a private dwelling because they’d been told someone ‘extra’ was in the house. Even though there wasn’t. 

 Luke90 08 Jan 2021
In reply to msjhes2:

> Driving via Starbucks for a leisurely walk is hardly in the spirit of lockdown.

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the leisurely part, people are entitled to exercise at whatever level of strenuousness they fancy. The exercise exemption is surely as much about mental health as cardiovascular fitness. And if you're aggrieved by the Starbucks angle then lobby the government to close them rather than blaming individuals for using facilities that the government have deemed legit.

Post edited at 14:19
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> I might be wrong with the new terminology, are you describing what might now be called a 'Karen'?

Why have you arrested me?
is it because I'm Karen?

In reply to marsbar:

> The Scottish rules are extremely clear.  The English rules are open to interpretation.  

I've now got this image of Mel Gibson...shouting Freedom...

 Ramblin dave 08 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

> if they'd been carrying guns would the effing police from that area have doffed their caps and let them go about their lawful business in their part of village, town or city?

Could've gone to a garden centre, too.

In fact, maybe someone should have set up a little plant stall in the car park, since that seems to be an effective way of stopping the virus spreading.

 Denning76 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Living in Derbyshire I've always found the coppers to be decent people. Perhaps the issues are arising not because of the nature of the policemen, but because we have a large number of tourist honeypots which people from surrounding cities, even London, visit en masse, which at present needs to be deterred. Basically, is it really due to the police, or instead due to the number of people (often not locals) taking the piss? Even prior to the lockdown people were flagrantly ignoring the group of 6 rule etc at places like Curbar.

Take one look at the Mountain Rescue numbers for the Peak last year, then compare against 2019 and the national trend. There's something going on that needs to stop.

Post edited at 14:32
1
 Justaname 08 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

Isn't Burbage Edge South Yorkshire Police?

 elliot.baker 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

I still think there's something else going on here. If the police weren't following the 4E's and if this place is a honeypot, then surely many other people would've been fined on that day.

Then the article would say that many people were fined that day, I can't believe the police were camped out in the car park waiting at a honey pot and these two were the only people to rock up that day.

They must have kicked off surely and that's why they were fined, either that or the police aren't following the 4Es and either no one else turned up or other people turned up but the BBC wasn't told about them also getting fines.

 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I think Karen's are generally the middle class white women who call the police when black people are seen in their "nice" neighbourhoods.  

Maybe I will be a "Sharon".  "Oi, posh bint, get out of here and back to Ashby!"

2
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

Well, that is my card full.  Not only a man hating feminist, but a misogynist as well.  

Bingo!!  I win.  

 S Ramsay 08 Jan 2021
In reply to msjhes2:

Really!!? You want the police enforcing things based on the spirit of the law and not the actual law? What happens when they decide that you've strayed from your local vicinity while walking and fine you? Will you still support that?

And what does being a Peak District local have to do with anything? This was South of Derby.

I feel like I might drive up to the Peak District from Oxfordshire for a walk tomorrow. Peaceful protest against living in a police state. No Covid risk.

7
In reply to elliot.baker:

> Surely there must be more to it than that 

Possibly. Boredom, and a desire to 'justify' their large presence at a remote location? Much less hassle than breaking up house parties, etc.

2
In reply to marsbar:

>  I suppose you could argue that buying the coffee (if they did) put the drive through staff at risk.

But those outlets aren't shut by the legislation or guidance, so 'obviously' not a risk...

 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I hadn't seen that one.  

 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Justaname:

I haven't a clue which side of the border it is.  

 peppermill 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Timmd:

My (Yorkshire dairy farmer) dad has been adamant for about 30 years that anyone wearing wellies "Wi' straps on' sides" should be treated with the utmost suspicion.......;p

 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to S Ramsay:

Just tell them you are popping up North for an eye test.  Job done.  

Or you could say the only church that meets your religious obligations is in Derbyshire.  

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-church-tiers-glastonbury-b700944.html

Post edited at 15:12
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to peppermill:

Seems reasonable to me.  

In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> looks like you believe women aren't allowed to exhibit wealth.  

I think you might want to check marsbar's profile...

In reply to peppermill:

> My (Yorkshire dairy farmer) dad

Just tell him the straps are for fastening your wallet to; even harder to get to than deep pockets...

Post edited at 15:19
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

On a slightly different sub-topic the BBC in their coverage have quoted Lord Sumption again with no mention that he is a full-on unscientific lockdown denier. Less seriously but still sloppy they also forgot to say the portrait of the two (with the wine glasses) was taken before covid social distancing rules applied.

 peppermill 08 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

Haha. Some assumption there. Wallet was usually firmly locked in the glove box of the pickup or else at home!

In reply to rj_townsend:

> If they do, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I suspect the fine will be upheld.

There is no justification in current English law for issuing a fine for travelling to exercise. The fine, based on that justification, would not be upheld. The law is still the law.

1
In reply to peppermill:

I thought this was the thread for stereotypical jibes.. 

In reply to Offwidth:

> they also forgot to say the portrait of the two (with the wine glasses) was taken before covid social distancing rules applied.

Yeah, sadly, BBC News can be pretty sloppy in their desire to be 'first with the news'.

 Andrew Wells 08 Jan 2021

I think it's quite possible that if they refused to pay an objected to the charge then they might get it overturned in court as they only broke the law in terms of the police's interpretation of "reasonable distance."

Typically I don't support the police by default, and lockdown is an exception. But the police also need to act with reason and restraint, and I think they failed to to do so here. Rather than sending a bunch of officers to give two women a £200 fine each, find some actual work to do.

Post edited at 15:29
4
In reply to Denning76:

> Living in Derbyshire I've always found the coppers to be decent people. Perhaps the issues are arising not because of the nature of the policemen, but because we have a large number of tourist honeypots which people from surrounding cities, even London, visit en masse, which at present needs to be deterred.

I don't disagree.  But it's not for the Police to decide unilaterally to do that (beyond speaking to people and asking them if they wouldn't mind going elsewhere, perhaps with some suggestions).  It's for the National Park Authorities to close the car parks (if they wish), for the Police to enforce any breaches of the existing law on parking if that means people park on the road, and for the Government to legislate if they wish to ban that specific activity.

It might be being done with the best of intentions, but there is only one place where it being done leads - a Police state where the Police decide what's right - and that is not acceptable.

We have a three-tier legal system - legislators, police and judiciary - for a VERY good reason.  As do most democracies.

Post edited at 15:29
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I think it's quite possible that if they refused to pay an objected to the charge then they might get it overturned in court as they only broke the law in terms of the police's interpretation of "reasonable distance."

Distance does not feature in the law at all.

In reply to elliot.baker:

> Surely there must be more to it than that - I've always thought the police said they "engage, explain, encourage and only enforce as a last resort" as per this College of Policing guidance. 

The impression I have is that the Derbyshire force (specifically) are choosing to ignore that.  A bit like I understand Northamptonshire don't use 10%+2mph guidelines on speeding fines, and also don't (or didn't) offer speed awareness courses.

In reply to Enty:

> On a serious note, it's shit like this that simply makes people turn against the rules and stop bothering.

Precisely.

I would have no particular issue with the actual law (not guidance) being enforced strictly - i.e. if you're caught, straight to a fine, none of the E's first.  This may be necessary to get the level of compliance required.

But this does not, on the face of it, appear to be in breach of the law.

It would not entirely surprise me if they were a bit gobby so the officer got his pad out.  But even that isn't on, to be honest; being nice and co-operative may sometimes get you off, but you should never be written up for not having broken the law even if you're incredibly rude (provided you're not rude to the extent of breaking decency laws etc).

Post edited at 15:35
1
 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I am not clear if "you must not travel outside your local area to exercise" is law or guidance. 

In this particular case the county boundary may be more significant than the mileage.  

1
In reply to marsbar:

> I am not clear if "you must not travel outside your local area to exercise" is law or guidance. 

In England it is guidance.  The actual law can be found on legislation.gov.uk if you want to compare them.

It says "should", not "must" - the Highway Code approach has been used for writing the gov.uk stuff.  "Musts" are in the law, "shoulds" aren't.

 Denning76 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Some car parks were closed during the first lockdown. The National Trust for instance shut the Curbar Gap one down. People just moved the stones blocking it off.

I agree that the legislation should be tighter to limit the scope for interpretation. At present it is far too wide. That is not the fault of the police however. 

1
In reply to Denning76:

> I agree that the legislation should be tighter to limit the scope for interpretation. At present it is far too wide. That is not the fault of the police however. 

Indeed not.  And they probably agree - and they can feed that back.  It is however of absolutely vital importance, to avoid destroying the relationship between Police and policed, that they don't enforce it until such time as it actually becomes law.

In reply to Luke90:

We sent Derbyshire Police a message asking for clarity about the Sheffield 'local' boundary and any distinction they might make between walking and climbing (we'd heard similar reports of people being told to return home from places) and they responded:

'Based on your question, we are in no position to advise regarding this. We are advising members of the public to follow the government guidelines which have been released on http://direct.gov/coronavirus.'

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

So Derbyshire Police are not only not competent enough to work out what the law is, they also don't know the correct URL for the public information on said law.

Mind-blowingly incompetent.

Once this is over, it's time for reform.

Post edited at 15:51
2

Foremark Reservoir is more than 5 miles from Ashby de la Zouch.

I live near Cannock Chase (5 miles as the crow flies) but haven't been visiting because to drive there is, to my mind, against the ethos of the government advice as I can exercise directly from my house (all be it on rather boring local paths). It's also likely to be very crowded around the car parks.

1
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

The police were there already!!??

If 'fined' they would have been given an FPN, where it is a standard requirement you can chose to challenge it in court (and they would certainly win in court if what they say is true). The two women went to journalists and claim something that does seems suspicious to me. In particular given the senior police have a reputation and public compliance to maintain (and have been under the press spotlight): so if the police had done as the two women say, a formal apology would have been exceedingly wise. This has not happened (yet). We don't know what the police involved say happened (and I'm guessing we can't until the penalty is payed or a court decision is made).

This is the first 'evidence' of any potentially unjustified fine the Derbyshire force have made during the pandemic despite a massive media fuss against them led by a lockdown denier in chief. Good old law abiding Brits supporting their bobbies.

Post edited at 16:04
1
In reply to Offwidth:

> Good old law abiding Brits supporting their bobbies.

I support them in enforcing the law as it is written, not when they are making it up.

4
 rj_townsend 08 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> There is no justification in current English law for issuing a fine for travelling to exercise. The fine, based on that justification, would not be upheld. The law is still the law.

Fine. If they've paid the fine rather than refusing and taking their chance in court, they have effectively pleaded guilty to the offence they're being fined for. If they choose to challenge it in court, I'm quite happy for the magistrate to deliver their verdict as it will be based on more evidence from both sides than has been presented in a BBC article.

2
In reply to Neil Williams:

> But even that isn't on, to be honest; being nice and co-operative may sometimes get you off, but you should never be written up for not having broken the law even if you're incredibly rude (provided you're not rude to the extent of breaking decency laws etc).

Agreed. A quick slap would be far more effective...

1
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

If so you would wait for the legal decision and not engage in  trial by media.

 peppermill 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

It's such a weird article. What's with the champagne picture and and photo of the starbucks cup?

I wouldn't be surprised if the police were (understandably) just taking the odd drive around the hotspots and stumbled across them and had a chat an got attitude in return but they don't do themselves any favours in explaining the incident at all.

 gparn 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

One of the serious problems with over enforcement (or just enforcement of guidance rather than law) is that there is no appealfor these fines. You either pay up or you go to the magistrates court and face a criminal record and unlimited fine if convicted. The fines are also hefty.

In reality therefore police can enforce however they fancy (though I'm not suggesting any malicious motive on their part) - the public are just going to pay the fine (a) because who knows what is guidance and what is law anyway and (b) the alternative is so awful.

This is assisted by how ridiculously unclear the law is. Police Scotland still has a link to the coronavirus regs from March on its website. You need a really good understanding of how to navigate legislation.gov to find out what the actual law is. 

Adam Wagner (human rights barrister) has a good twitter thread on what is law, what is guidance and what constitutes a reasonable excuse for being out. The list is long and e.g. includes anything to protect your mental health. There are exceptions for a reason.

I'd recommend reading it but be wary about actually following his recommendations given the gap between law and enforcement.

In reply to rj_townsend:

> Fine. If they've paid the fine rather than refusing and taking their chance in court, they have effectively pleaded guilty to the offence they're being fined for. If they choose to challenge it in court, I'm quite happy for the magistrate to deliver their verdict as it will be based on more evidence from both sides than has been presented in a BBC article.

Exactly, that's generally how precedent is established.

So to recap. We have a thousand deaths a day from Covid (and some of these will be real humans and not just old people over 60), the NHS and NHS staff on the brink of collapse, increasing Covid infections, the economy is doomed and there will probably be mass unemployment once the fallout to this and brexit hits.

In other news two ladies have run crying to the media after being fined less than the cost of getting their nails done, a fine they are perfectly at liberty to contest in court.

Cry me a f***ing river.

11
 Andrew Wells 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

As I said, I do support the police when it comes to the lockdown.

But not in this circumstance. In this circumstance they were unreasonable. Also passing information to the media about the police is a good thing. The police should be subject to public scrutiny. 

3
 kevin stephens 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

It seems clear that this was a social gathering with a little exercise thrown in, rather than the other way round.

Good for the publicity the police action has attracted by making an example of this. 

People (including some of this on UKC) still don't realise the seriousness of this, and that if their individual freedom was adopted by everybody then we would be in even deeper shit

However I wouldn't be surprised if my local honeypot Langsett Reservoir is overrun with people in close proximity tomorrow with a good forecast.  I'll be exercising (with dog) from my front door with some turbo training and maybe finger boarding after

 Timmd 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Ridge:

The civil rights organisation Liberty is also taking a dim view of them being challenged and fined (going on their facebook shares).

It's not about the hardship but the principle, if the police made up they were having a picnic (presumably pairs of people walking in the street carrying coffee are having picnics too) so they could fine them, and help get them to feel like going away again, that is unjust, it is a small thing, but that's not the point, if it's applied across the board it effects our civil liberties.

Post edited at 16:53
1
In reply to peppermill:

> It's such a weird article. What's with the champagne picture and and photo of the starbucks cup?

The BBC treat their online news feed like social media, I'm afraid. Gotta have pretty pictures.

 gimmergimmer 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Does anyone know where they set off from and how long the journey was?

In reply to wilkie14c:

> To add some sort of context, Foremark is a very very popular spot with walkers, picnickers and the like in normal times. During lockdown 1 it was rammed daily and caused all sorts of problems as folk were parking on the main road when car parks were full or closed. If this headline stops folks from going to Foremark then it is justified. 

> It isn’t about going for a walk around Foremark but driving to get there. If this headline prevents 1000 visitors during 1 week then that is 1000’s of miles of driving prevented. I don’t know what the stats are but obviously keeping cars of the road will reduce the likelyhood of accidents thus reducing pressures on the NHS and emergency services.

> Im not saying it is right or wrong but during lockdown 1, everyone wanted clarification of one point or another. Well now we have it. Don’t travel to exercise! 

> (Foremark was local to me for many years so I do know the area well)

You say ...during lockdown 1 it was rammed daily.

Here in North Yorkshire during lockdown 1 we weren't allowed to travel in a car to exercise,all Reservoirs and Forest Commission estates had Covid signs up...I was lucky enough I could access from my house.

 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

As I said to Neil trial by media is simply not consistent with supporting law and order. The two women might not be telling the full truth.

This is such a weird year for me. I seem to end up defending institutions where I'm normally more concerned about a lack of action on clear evidence (after all standard process is exhausted) that they have done something wrong. People are arguing on some threads on here that their opinions are more important than facts that lead to suffering and deaths and near destructive hospital disruption.

We have broken the UK record today in official daily covid deaths and people are attacking the police on a small FPN even before their public evidence is presented.

Post edited at 16:48
3
In reply to Ridge:

I'm wholeheartedly in favour of lockdown. I've argued it should have been much earlier, and harder.

But, realistically, two women driving a few miles to go for a walk around a reservoir, isn't a significant risk.

Schools, workplaces, pubs, restaurants and private homes are the significant risks; all indoors. All enclosed spaces. All relatively close contact.

The main reason we are in this shit state is because the government did not lock down in a timely manner, and ignored evidence of where transmission was occurring.

4
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

I agree with all of that but we just don't know what happened in their interaction with the police officers involved that may have influenced an FPN.

 deepsoup 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Justaname:

> Isn't Burbage Edge South Yorkshire Police?

The same South Yorkshire Police that had one of their coppers screaming at someone in to go back inside the house because they weren't allowed in their front garden in lockdown #1?
(Credit where credit is due though, that was early days and they did admit they'd got it wrong on that occasion, apologise and back down gracefully.)

You're quite right about the Burbage valley and the crags themselves, but if the police forces divide their jurisdiction neatly along the county border it would fall to the Derbyshire force to protect us all from the menace of rural tea drinkers by staking out the car park.

 robhorton 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> As I said to Neil trial by media is simply not consistent with supporting law and order. The two women might not be telling the full truth.

The police were approached for comment but didn't say anything to contradict the womens' account.

In reply to Offwidth:

> I agree with all of that but we just don't know what happened in their interaction with the police officers involved that may have influenced an FPN.

Much as some Police Officers would like it to be, answering back to a Police Officer neither is an offence nor should it be.  The worst that should ever entail is that the law is enforced to the letter rather than any leniency given.

Unfortunately, some Officers like to be on a power trip, and it strikes me that that was exactly what these were doing.

Post edited at 17:05
4
 Andrew Wells 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I can see where you are coming from but it is fair to say that I can think that the Coronavirus situation is shocking and awful while also thinking the police acted incorrectly in this particular circumstance, because I don't think these women actually did anything wrong.

In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I can see where you are coming from but it is fair to say that I can think that the Coronavirus situation is shocking and awful while also thinking the police acted incorrectly in this particular circumstance, because I don't think these women actually did anything wrong.

In actual fact I support the law being stricter, while also holding the view that until such time as it is stricter, the Police should stick to enforcing what it is, not what they think it should be.

 deepsoup 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

>As I said to Neil trial by media is simply not consistent with supporting law and order. The two women might not be telling the full truth.

'Trial by media' of the police, that is.  You seem to be fully in favour trial by media for the "covidiots".

> People are arguing on some threads on here that their opinions are more important than facts that lead to suffering and deaths and near destructive hospital disruption.

Blatant strawman.  Nobody on here is doing that.  (Not even the 'bots - they're disputing the facts, not claiming that their own opinions outweigh them.)  That's just how you are characterising people who disagree with you.

Post edited at 17:11
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

They are are not disputing facts they are denying facts based on their opinions. The worst examples went to the pub and some got banned but Lord Ash is still here and his proposals amount to deluded eugenics (leave people ill with covid to die at home to save hospitals and keep the economy open for the rest of us).

Given the paragraph is intended as a standalone existential statement of despair at the way the world is heading it couldn't be a strawman in any case.

On the covidiot driver point with vehicles in a ditch they are not named and its not a legal matter but there is clear evidence of their foolishness (in the ditch) and news reports will cover similar stories anyhow.

Post edited at 17:19
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

"Unfortunately, some Officers like to be on a power trip, and it strikes me that that was exactly what these were doing."

Potentially libel the police to show just how strong a supporter of law and order you are!?

5
In reply to Offwidth:

> a supporter of law and order you are!?

I'm in favour of police officers upholding the law. On the face of evidence presented in the report, they were not doing that; the law does not restrict travel for exercise.

Post edited at 17:34
 Martin W 08 Jan 2021
In reply to gimmergimmer:

> Does anyone know where they set off from and how long the journey was?

The article states that one of the women drove from Ashby.  It doesn't say where the other one drove from.  If the other one lived in, say, Repton i.e. pretty much diametrically on the other side of Foremark from her pal, would it have been reasonable for the two of them to meet up there?  For clarity: I'm in Scotland, where a maximum of two people from two separate households are legally allowed to meet outdoors for "for sport, exercise or social interaction"*.  Apologies for being ignorant of the law on t'other side of the border.

* Though Google Maps tells me that Foremark Reservoir Car Park is 5.2 miles by road from the North West Leicestershire border travelling along the A5006 from Ashby, so the legality of her journey might have been questionable under the Scottish "no more then five miles from your local authority boundary" laws (depending on whether you regard that as meaning by road, or as the crow files) - which of course don't apply in England.

I also note that Google Maps states that the car park is "temporarily closed", which suggests that Severn Trent Water don't want people going there at the moment.

 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to robhorton:

As I said earlier, can they say anything in detail to the press if a court case might still occur? All you ever get initially is the standard vanilla reply.

There are better targets than this one so why is Derbyshire getting flack: on the other pub thread Shropshire police said snowball fights are not exercise.

Also on that thread FactorXXX rightly copied out the advice that rules are legal requirements that you must legally follow but guidelines could be should follow or must follow depending on interpretation.

 fred99 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> So Derbyshire Police are not only not competent enough to work out what the law is, they also don't know the correct URL for the public information on said law.

> Mind-blowingly incompetent.

> Once this is over, it's time for reform.

Maybe once this is over - or maybe before ? - it's time for the Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary to be sacked (and not allowed to retire early on full pension while the matter is being "discussed").

After all, PC's operate under his instructions, and this is by no means the first incidence of problems. By now he (?) should have worked out instructions for his officers to follow which prevent such incidents. This is bringing any other policing across the country into disrepute, and the last thing we want is for people to start ignoring the basic concept of "don't spread the virus".

3
 fred99 08 Jan 2021
In reply to rj_townsend:

> Fine. If they've paid the fine rather than refusing and taking their chance in court, they have effectively pleaded guilty to the offence they're being fined for....

How many people, other than members of the legal profession, are likely to know the nuances of the law ? Especially when "surrounded" by Police Officers. I would have thought the likely stress in such a "meeting" is more than likely to be enough to make anyone feel threatened sufficiently to not think of such things.

And if they had "disagreed" ? Then the usual attitude of PC Plod is to arrest such a person for some invented offence or another plus "resisting arrest". Once in the station the invented offence is chucked out but "resisting arrest" remains - heads they win, tail we lose !

1
 Andrew Wells 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I think that's fair and reasonable. I think the law should definitely be clearer because "reasonable distance" is just useless.

 Si dH 08 Jan 2021
In reply to thread:

Several people have made incorrect assertions on this thread about what the police can do under the auspices of the Coronavirus legislation. So to clear a few things up...

The legislation says the following (in schedule 3A, which is the updated Tier 4 restrictions, applying to the whole of England during the new lockdown):

"1.—(1) No person who lives in the Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—

(a)the circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse include where one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 2 applies;

...

2.—(1) These are the exceptions referred to in paragraph 1.

Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes

(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (P) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)—

...

(c)to take exercise outside—

(i)alone,

(ii)with—

(aa)one or more members of their household, their linked household, or

(bb)where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or

(iii)in a public outdoor place, with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household or their linked childcare household,

..."

On enforcement the legislation says as follows (note, a "relevant person" here is a constable):

"9.—

(2A) Where a relevant person considers that a person is outside the place where they are living in contravention of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3A, the relevant person may direct that person to return to the place where they are living.

...

(8) A relevant person exercising a power under paragraph (2A), (2B) or (3), (5) or (6) may give the person concerned any reasonable instructions the relevant person considers to be necessary."

On offences the legislation says:

"10.—(1) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person—

(a)contravenes a Tier 1 restriction, a Tier 2 restriction, a Tier 3 restriction or a Tier 4 restriction,

(b)contravenes a requirement imposed, or a direction given, under regulation 9,

(c)fails to comply with a reasonable instruction or a prohibition notice given by a relevant person under regulation 9, or

(d)obstructs any person carrying out a function under these Regulations (including any person who is a relevant person for the purposes of regulation 9).

(2) An offence under this regulation is punishable on summary conviction by a fine.

..."

The section on Fixed Penalty Notices says:

"11.—(1) An authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to any person that the authorised person reasonably believes—

(a)has committed an offence under these Regulations, and

(b)is (in the case of an individual) aged 18 or over."

What this all means is, if a constable considers that (ie, in their opinion) your activity* is not reasonably necessary for you to take outside exercise, they can direct you to return home. They can also give you any reasonable instruction they consider to be necessary. None of this has to be proven in any way, the law gives them the power to do this based on their judgement. If you contravene either a direction or a reasonable instruction, or obstruct them, you have committed an offence.

Secondly, what it means is that if they reasonably believe that your activity* is not reasonably necessary to take outside exercise or that you have contravened one of their directions or instructions, then they can issue you a fine.

In reaching their judgement as to what is reasonable, they will consider a range of things. Although travel is not strictly forbidden under the regulations, I think it's completely implausible to suggest it won't ever be considered. To take an extreme case, if I travelled from Merseyside to London to take my exercise along the banks of the Thames, that would clearly not be reasonably necessary. I think they could consider the distance and a number of other factors such as the nature of the place you were visiting. The only question in the case of this news article is whether you would expect the police to judge that a drive of 5 miles was unreasonable. In the law, in determining whether to issue a direction or a fixed penalty notice, that is for them to judge. You could challenge a FPN and might be successful if they hadn't applied any guidance given to them in how to reach the judgements discussed above.

So, the quotes below from the BBC are in, in my view, on the money:

'Derbyshire Police said: "It is up to each individual officer on a case-by-case basis to decide what is reasonable as the legislation does not proscribe a distance."

However, the College of Policing said: "In overall terms police officers across England and Wales will be using their discretion and professional judgement about whether or not someone has a reasonable excuse for travelling for exercise and being outside the place where they are living."

'

* Use of the word "activity" is a bit of my interpretation. By this mean I mean everything you do while outside your home (which would include driving). An alternative interpretation would be that as long as it is reasonably necessary for you to be outside your home in order to take exercise outside, which it arguably might always be, then you could leave home and go or do anywhere/anything you wanted. This is clearly not the intent of the regulations so I can't see how it would fly.

(I have a bit of legal training, but not very much and am not a lawyer.)

(I have no axe to grind either way. This case does seem a bit OTT to me but if that is how strict they really want to be then it's a good way to put down a marker.)

1
 fred99 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I agree with all of that but we just don't know what happened in their interaction with the police officers involved that may have influenced an FPN.

Isn't it about time that the existing technology of body cameras was a legal requirement for ALL Police Officers whilst on duty, rather than seemingly being an "optional extra" that they can use when it suits them ?

If this happened then there would be no question regarding what happened, before, during and after any incident. This would mean innocent citizens would not have "problems", decent Coppers would have undeniable evidence, and real criminals, along with the "less than scrupulous" Police Officers would have nowhere to hide.

1
 Martin W 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> The police were there already!!??

That's what the woman who is quoted in the article says.  Further down in the article someone else is quoted as having experienced the same at a different location (Calke Abbey).  It could begin to look as if this is a standard practice that Derbyshire Police have chosen to adopt.

> If 'fined' they would have been given an FPN, where it is a standard requirement you can chose to challenge it in court (and they would certainly win in court if what they say is true).

The woman is quoted in the article as saying that she gave her details so that an FPN could be issued.

> The two women went to journalists and claim something that does seems suspicious to me.

As far as I can see from the article only one of the women has gone to journalists.  And AFAIK there's nothing to stop her doing that while also aiming to challenge the penalty.

 deepsoup 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> They are are not disputing .. they are denying

Tomayto, tomahto.

> there is clear evidence of their foolishness (in the ditch)

Clear evidence, taking fred99 at his word, that more than one driver lost control in the same spot and slid off the road.  No evidence that they did that simultaneously, nor that they were doing anything more than trying to get from A-B, choosing their route unwisely and lacking the skill or luck to get away with it.

Perhaps they were lulled into a false sense of security on account of being in a 4x4 vehicle, they'd hardly be the first. 

Foolishness yes - you could make a case for "idiots".  "Covidiots" on the other hand just makes you look judgemental, sanctimonious and, given that you're happy enough to stick your neck out and say you have no problem with someone driving a short distance to go climbing, hypocritical.

From your post at 17:39

> There are better targets than this one so why is Derbyshire getting flack

On here?
1: This forum is ridiculously Peak-centric.
2: People keep starting threads about them.  Yours was a borderline troll, you should be delighted with all the attention.

Post edited at 18:07
1
 Yanis Nayu 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

I agree. Pathetic over-reach of powers when so many more important issues to be dealing with. 

 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Martin W:

The local paper says they both travelled from Ashby, having both gone through the drive through.  It's more like 7 miles, and crucially it is in a different county.  This appears to be the issue.  

1
 arch 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Not just Foremark, but Calke Abbey as well. Both Derbyshire police.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/confusion-over-lockdown-law-police-4866733

 Andrew Wells 08 Jan 2021

I will be honest, I don't really trust the police to decide what is reasonable or not based on individual judgement. On anything.

3
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to fred99:

Agreed.

 Tom V 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I can't see the ruling about snowballing not being exercise in the Shropshire news article. Is there more than one on UKC at the moment  ( the proliferation of Derbyshire police threads is a bit confusing to me)

 Myfyr Tomos 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Timmd:

You'd be surprised who get it wrong...    

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55573412

 deepsoup 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I don't really trust the police to decide what is reasonable or not based on individual judgement.

It's an essential part of their job and always has been, so we really have no choice but to trust them to do it if we want to actually have police.  They're human and they make mistakes but by and large I think they're doing pretty well.

1
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Disputing facts (say debating their accuracy or use, in debate) is absolutely not the same as denying facts (where they are saying facts are wrong based on nothing more than ideology). That's the reality of the difference of banned pop-up covid deniers on UKC and the political  scepticism of some UKC regulars (that is debatable).

Go ahead and call me a hypocrite for defending locals driving locally to exercise and calling out people crashing because they failed to cope with the well advertised icy road conditions that most people would sensibly avoid. The law is all about what is reasonable. You really do seem obsessed with angels on pinheads whilst missing the big picture.

The fuss about Derbyshire police in particular has been across the national press and highlighted with anger by leading covid deniers like Sumption.

1
 deepsoup 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Myfyr Tomos:

> You'd be surprised who get it wrong...   
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55573412

In this example, imo:

"The chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has apologised"
^She got it wrong.

"North Wales Police declined to comment"
^They got it right.

Post edited at 18:27
 wercat 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Si dH:

I've said before that these regulations do not read like legislation.

They are like summary points in a ministerial power point and the sense as expressed is incomplete, requiring better and more precise wording and also clarification as to whether the minister's dictated bullet points (note the very strange character symbols used in the "Regulations" which look more like powerpointese than legal terms) are to be alternatively or collectively fulfilled.  As I've said before they look like the work of an amateur who has seen a DIY willmaking kit.  (And I have drafted proper wills in my time).

1
 rj_townsend 08 Jan 2021
In reply to fred99:

> How many people, other than members of the legal profession, are likely to know the nuances of the law ? Especially when "surrounded" by Police Officers. I would have thought the likely stress in such a "meeting" is more than likely to be enough to make anyone feel threatened sufficiently to not think of such things.

I'm making the wild assumption that the two ladies in question can read. Any fixed penalty document from a police officer will have it clearly stated how to make payment, how to appeal and how to refuse and go to court. If they've been reported and will have the penalty notice sent to them (as one of the reports suggested) it will be stated on that.

> And if they had "disagreed" ? Then the usual attitude of PC Plod is to arrest such a person for some invented offence or another plus "resisting arrest". Once in the station the invented offence is chucked out but "resisting arrest" remains - heads they win, tail we lose !

Oh grow up. The bar for a conviction on resisting arrest is set high enough for it not to be worth the officer's hassle in a case like this.

2
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

"It's an essential part of their job and always has been, so we really have no choice but to trust them to do it if we want to actually have police.  They're human and they make mistakes but by and large I think they're doing pretty well."

At least we can agree with that. Its bizarre people claiming to believe in law and order would potentially libel and distrust before we get to see the police side of the story.

1
 Andrew Wells 08 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I don't think we do. If we made the law clearer, then we wouldn't need to trust the judgement of individual coppers about what is reasonable. 

 Pedro50 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> The fuss about Derbyshire police in particular has been across the national press and highlighted with anger by leading covid deniers like Sumption.

Whatever you think of Sumption I don't think he can be called a Covid denier. 

In reply to Offwidth:

> "Unfortunately, some Officers like to be on a power trip, and it strikes me that that was exactly what these were doing."

> Potentially libel the police to show just how strong a supporter of law and order you are!?

I'm a supporter of them enforcing the law, yes.  Not making it up as they go along, enforcing things that aren't the law.  If they enforce things that aren't the law, yes, I oppose them while they are doing that.

There's been another case reported on the BBC of the self same force hanging around open National Trust properties and similar (you're allowed to exercise in their gardens) and doing people on the way in in very similar circumstances - not asking them to go home first, going straight to £200.

Like last time, it appears to be just Derbyshire and one of the Yorkshire forces (forget which one) that are being reported for this.  If it was happening all over England I'd think there was some bad reporting going on, but it isn't - it's specifically Derbyshire and that one other Force.

That says to me something is badly wrong.

2
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> I think that's fair and reasonable. I think the law should definitely be clearer because "reasonable distance" is just useless.

"Reasonable distance" does not appear in the law.  There is nothing on distance in the law whatsoever.

The only scope I can see to enforce on distance is where people really take the mick - e.g. drive from London to the Peak for a short walk - in which case they could probably get them on having left home primarily for a drive/day-trip and not for exercise.  But driving 6 miles for a walk doesn't seem to even come close to this.

2
 WVRox 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

To cut through the ambiguity surrounding the term 'local, and this business about staying in your town or village,  why have we not gone down the same path as the French? Stay a certain distance from home (1k in the first lock down) and carry a document explaining your journey (attestation).

2
In reply to Neil Williams:

This argument will continue in terms of what constitutes reasonable distance. At the end of the day this is yet another failure of government, if they had been clear in terms of what the law allowed you to do, eg walk from home or drive 5 miles then people might not like it but at least they know where they stand. This option was apparently considered by the cabinet but Johnson bottled it because he did not want to further upset the anti lockdown Mp's in the Tory Party.

1
In reply to Si dH:

> * Use of the word "activity" is a bit of my interpretation. By this mean I mean everything you do while outside your home (which would include driving). An alternative interpretation would be that as long as it is reasonably necessary for you to be outside your home in order to take exercise outside, which it arguably might always be, then you could leave home and go or do anywhere/anything you wanted. This is clearly not the intent of the regulations so I can't see how it would fly.

I don't interpret it in either of the ways you do.

What I read it as is that if it is reasonably necessary to take exercise (which is recommended to be taken once a day by various medical and public health texts), then that is a valid reason to be outside the home, provided you are outside the home for that reason.  That doesn't justify you being outside the home for other purposes not listed, e.g. to read a book in the park, or to go for a day-trip to a particular location (e.g. London to the Peak) to take a short walk.

If this wasn't the case, then I don't see why National Trust places would be remaining open, as basically near enough nobody has one on their doorstep (they tend to be in the middle of nowhere), so it has to be OK to drive a few miles to one else they wouldn't be open.  Under near enough no circumstances do you find one "in the same village, town or part of city" as you live, because they tend not to be in villages, towns or cities.  And yet it seems the self same Force has been hanging around the entrance to National Trust places doing people as they enter - really?!

This is sort of backed up by a change that was made in March - originally it only said "leave your home", and people were therefore saying that if you went out for a run you could also go and do other stuff not listed.  I understand the Courts did actually agree with that, and so it was changed to "leave or be outside your home" or somesuch.  That would be the intepretation you're giving above as wrong, and I'd agree it's wrong because that's precisely why the wording was changed.

2
In reply to Dewi Williams:

> This argument will continue in terms of what constitutes reasonable distance.

It doesn't matter, because the law doesn't mention distance.

> At the end of the day this is yet another failure of government, if they had been clear in terms of what the law allowed you to do, eg walk from home or drive 5 miles then people might not like it but at least they know where they stand. This option was apparently considered by the cabinet but Johnson bottled it because he did not want to further upset the anti lockdown Mp's in the Tory Party.

Exactly.  Something like "you must remain within a radius of 10 miles from your home, or the home of your support bubble", with a couple of exceptions, e.g. "if there is no supermarket within 10 miles, you may visit the nearest one" (with "supermarket" defined as one large enough to be required to close on Sundays under the relevant law, because many can't afford to shop at expensive local shops).  Or just to remain within your ceremonial County (some unitaries are too small).

Post edited at 18:58
1
In reply to WVRox:

> To cut through the ambiguity surrounding the term 'local, and this business about staying in your town or village,  why have we not gone down the same path as the French? Stay a certain distance from home (1k in the first lock down) and carry a document explaining your journey (attestation).

The "attestation" is pointless and is typical French hyper-bureaucracy, but I would agree with a radius being given.  1km is silly, I couldn't even run round the block and stay within that, but 10 miles would cover almost every need while still keeping the spread of the new variant in check and stopping the real stupidity e.g. going to the Peak from London.

2
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Pedro50:

Yes I can. If he thinks lockdowns are never needed he is denying the very nature of what covid 19 is.

2
 Si dH 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't interpret it in either of the ways you do.

> What I read it as is that if it is reasonably necessary to take exercise (which is recommended to be taken once a day by various medical and public health texts), then that is a valid reason to be outside the home, provided you are outside the home for that reason.  That doesn't justify you being outside the home for other purposes not listed, e.g. to read a book in the park, or to go for a day-trip to a particular location (e.g. London to the Peak) to take a short walk.

But it could be argued that once you have driven 10 minutes to go somewhere, then during that 10 minutes you aren't out of the home only for exercise (unless you have none closer.). Your day trip is just an extreme version and it all comes back to a judgement of what is reasonable.

> If this wasn't the case, then I don't see why National Trust places would be remaining open, as basically near enough nobody has one on their doorstep (they tend to be in the middle of nowhere), so it has to be OK to drive a few miles to one else they wouldn't be open.  Under near enough no circumstances do you find one "in the same village, town or part of city" as you live, because they tend not to be in villages, towns or cities.  And yet it seems the self same Force has been hanging around the entrance to National Trust places doing people as they enter - really?!

I agree with you about this.

> This is sort of backed up by a change that was made in March - originally it only said "leave your home", and people were therefore saying that if you went out for a run you could also go and do other stuff not listed.  I understand the Courts did actually agree with that, and so it was changed to "leave or be outside your home" or somesuch.  That would be the intepretation you're giving above as wrong, and I'd agree it's wrong because that's precisely why the wording was changed.

Interesting, didn't know that, thanks.

 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

It's just been on the headline BBC news on a really big news day, so much for it being a UKC Peak obsession.  The BBC editor clearly doesn't get the cognitive dissonance between nearly every covid stat being an all time record (including deaths in this peak overtaking the first peak previous daily record for the first time) alongside hospitals being said to be under the worst pressures on record (with scary scenes from wards) and a relatively minor civil rights issue which occured because the government didn't want to annoy its libertarian support by drawing up clearer law. The two women in question said they thought they were acting within the law and so were mainly concerned with a lack of clarity in the law and said they would contest any FPN (so don't expect details anytime before then from the police). The BBC also spoke to others who drove to the same venue and were just turned around with no FPN; so something they did led to that difference.

I'm also not happy south Derbyshire police are blocking car access to beauty spots but its far from a major problem compared to where this pandemic is heading and they are not issuing blanket fines.

Post edited at 19:13
3
In reply to Offwidth:

> It's just been on the headline BBC news on a really big news day, so much for it being a UKC Peak obsession.  The BBC editor clearly doesn't get the cognitive dissonance between nearly every covid stat being an all time record (including deaths in this peak overtaking the first peak previous daily record for the first time) alongside hospitals being said to be under the worst pressures on record (with scary scenes from wards) and a relatively minor civil rights issue which occured because the government didn't want to annoy its libertarian support by drawing up clearer law.

"Which occurred because the Police are unable to interpret the law correctly", you mean.

In this sort of situation, showing up misuse of the law is very important.  The Government is using extraordinary powers (for good reason), and it is vitally important to ensure that that power is not misused.

> The two women in question said they thought they were acting within the law and so were mainly concerned with a lack of clarity in the law and said they would contest any FPN (so don't expect details anytime before then from the police). The BBC also spoke to others who drove to the same venue and were just turned around with no FPN; so something they did led to that difference.

It will be interesting to see what that reason is, and I'm surprised the Force hasn't stated what it is.  Were the women perhaps first to arrive, and the officers reconsidered what they were doing once they had gone?

If the car park was closed, it is of course reasonable that they simply turn people away from it.

1
 Dave the Rave 08 Jan 2021
In reply to David Riley:

> Perhaps they'd sat together in one of the cars to drink the coffee ?   However, although I would really love to be a police supporter.  They have been appalling almost every time I've had contact with them.

I have to disagree with you here Dave.

I regularly drive up to Moel Famau which is five miles away. I usually go at 1730 which is when I’ve finished work ( including Xmas) and I went every night over Xmas until the snow fall on New Year’s Eve. Then the 2 lanes were marked as closed. I respected this.On Tuesday, the snow had cleared a lot so off I went. First lane closed so I drive to the second which was open and I got easily to the bottom car park which was open.

Parked up, 4 other cars there. Walked up and passed 3 groups Ill clad for the full on winter conditions. Icy paths, snow, white out and a stiff wind. Yes some were in shorts and spoke in a strong Liverpudlian accent. The kids looked cold. Crampons were definitely required as was a torch on the way down. Passed two people with dogs skating around and told them it got worse.  Near the car I passed two adults with a child, no torches and no kit. I suggested they may want to walk the lower paths.

Got to the car, dog in boot and coffee out, a polise car arrives and studied the cars near me. I expected the worst so supped my coffee. Eventually he swung his headlights around to me, pulled up alongside and wound down his window.

I gave him a cheery ‘good evening sir’ and he replied the same and asked if there were many in the woods. I gave him a fulll sit rep of people on the hill and that I had advised them of the conditions. We had a long chat about work, dickheads and COVID. I offered that I was local despite a strong northern accent and asked him where he lived ). He told me, hahaha

He was good as gold, a true Early Doors copper if you ever watched that comedy.?

I like to think I’d helped him out a bit and he respected that.

Post edited at 19:27
In reply to Dave the Rave:

Yep, that sounds sensible.  Most Police Officers are, unfortunately Derbyshire seems to have a particular problem with ones who are not.

Post edited at 19:38
2
 Tom V 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

So, in a nutshell, you equate the two Derbyshire women who've been fined with the Glencoe two who had the same treatment?  if so, we're on common ground apart from slight differences in terminology.

 Lankyman 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Dave the Rave:

What are you implying by 'strong Liverpudlian accent'? Would you have felt the need to mention a Cheshire accent?

Post edited at 20:00
4
 Dave the Rave 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> What are you implying by 'strong Liverpudlian accent'? Would you have felt the need to mention a Cheshire accent?

Yea I would, but people from Cheshire don’t have a strong accent, and because some people from the former accent area visit the local vicinity and cause chaos for the rest of us then it was worth a mention. Calm down la

1
 Tom V 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

I thought he was implying that the Scousers had driven a bit further than him and weren't really local. Then I got to thinking about trying to identify a Cheshire accent and the best I could come up with was Blaster Bates, whose LPs were popular in some circles in the late 60's .

"Pork Pies at the Crem" was actually a pretty funny story.

 Fredt 08 Jan 2021
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

> I agree. It does help make up my mind not to try driving the 5 miles out to Burbage to go for a nice walk with my five year old daughter though. 

> IT'S A TRAAAAAAAP.

I took a lovely walk around Burbage yesterday, took in Carl Wark and Higgar Tor, back down the Green Path, - never set foot in Derbyshire.

Post edited at 20:20
 David Riley 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Dave the Rave:

You are not disagreeing with me at all.  Just reporting a different experience.

I'm delighted to hear it.

 Dave the Rave 08 Jan 2021
In reply to David Riley:

> You are not disagreeing with me at all.  Just reporting a different experience.

> I'm delighted to hear it.

Goodo

In reply to Lankyman:

FWIW there are plenty of broad Scousers living in North Wales, just as there are in West Lancs, so they might well have been local.

 marsbar 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Derbyshire police appear to be acting on a definition of local that seems fairly reasonable, that if you are getting in the car and driving to Derbyshire from another county, then you are not local and not exercising at your nearest open space.  

It isn’t essential to drive to walk.  

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/lockdown-fines-issued-ten-minute-4869196

6
 Offwidth 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Tom V:

I didn't equate the two Leicestershire women in Derbyshire with anyone as the full facts were not known (and still are not). We now know the Derbyshire police have issued a statement that they are reassessing all their recent FPNs against guidance. If the women had told the full truth they were always in my view not guilty of any rule breach (unlike the scots who broke rules but would have been within rules if they hadn't parked in and climbed the wrong part of the range).

1
 elliot.baker 08 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

https://www.derbyshire.police.uk/news/derbyshire/news/news/forcewide/2021/january/force-welcomes-new-guidance-from-npcc-around-about-travelling-during-lockdown/
 

update!! This is interesting, I don’t think we need to be worried about popping to the local reservoir, in good faith, anymore. 

In reply to Fredt:

> I took a lovely walk around Burbage yesterday, took in Carl Wark and Higgar Tor, back down the Green Path, - never set foot in Derbyshire.

And no police handing out fines as soon as you pulled into the car park?

 deepsoup 09 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Derbyshire police appear to be acting on a definition of local that seems fairly reasonable, that if you are getting in the car and driving to Derbyshire from another county, then you are not local..

No way!  This link is by far their most clearly overzealous bit of enforcement cited so far.  They're talking about fining people who have driven for ten minutes on the grounds that they are not local.  It takes me longer than that to drive to the nearest proper supermarket.

Regarding "another county" - Calke Abbey is right next to the Derbyshire/Leicestershire border.  Its main car park is in Derbyshire and the overflow car park is in Leicestershire.

The other place in Derbyshire we've all been banging on about on here is the summit of the Snake Pass.  That is in the same county as Calke Abbey - and if you drive from there it'll take just under 2 hours.

Post edited at 00:08
 marsbar 09 Jan 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I understand they are now reviewing all the fines.  

I wasn't aware that the border was quite so near to Calke. Clearly the overflow car park is the place to go!  

Post edited at 00:38
 S Ramsay 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

If the police don't want people to think that a significant proportion of them enjoy going on a power trips then not fining people who aren't breaking the law would go somewhere to achieving that. This isn't libel, it's an opinion, and it's one that is backed up by the evidence

 jbrom 09 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

Yes BBC are reporting that the fine will be reviewed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55594244

From the article;

"The guidance said: "The Covid regulations which officers enforce and which enables them to issue FPNs [fixed penalty notices] for breaches, do not restrict the distance travelled for exercise."

The NPCC added that rather than issue fines for people who travel out of their local area "but are not breaching regulations, officers will encourage people to follow the guidance".

The force has now said it will be "aligning to adhere to this stance"."

For those that have understood the difference between the legislation and the guidance this is not news. However for those who willfully ignore guidance, or choose to exist in willful ignorance of it, this has potential to be a green light to travel as far as you want to.

I think Derbyshire police force have shot themselves in the foot here, as its now public knowledge you can travel to Derbyshire from as far away as you would like (in England) and not be fined.

Post edited at 01:04
 Si dH 09 Jan 2021
In reply to jbrom:

Excellent, we now know what guidance the police will be working with in future and I'd expect NPCC guidance will be applied consistently. That's really good news and a good outcome from this event.

 Fredt 09 Jan 2021
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

> And no police handing out fines as soon as you pulled into the car park?

No, but the car park I used wasn’t in Derbyshire either.

Post edited at 08:31
In reply to Si dH:

> Excellent, we now know what guidance the police will be working with in future and I'd expect NPCC guidance will be applied consistently. That's really good news and a good outcome from this event.

Agreed, though it's a shame it took this stupidity before that was established, given that there was already experience from March and the law is basically the same.

 Offwidth 09 Jan 2021
In reply to S Ramsay:

There is plenty of evidence out there of a small minority of police who actually exceeded their authority (albeit rarely with white business women in a nice area). As yet, this simply isn't one of them and until its proven one way or another we need to reserve judgement. The key point is we don't know what the women said when the police talked to them. Other people who drove there left without an FPN after the police spoke to them.

The irony in all this is I'm defending principles of law and how society can forget that and undermine the policing of a pandemic. In terms of policing in Derbyshire, personally I'd much rather the police focus on pubic indoor spaces where the commonly viewed breaches of regulation will much more likely be spreading C19. 

3
In reply to Offwidth:

> There is plenty of evidence out there of a small minority of police who actually exceeded their authority

Most notably, an official press release from their Force admitting that they did and apologising.  So I think there is now no scope for debate whatsoever as to whether those officers were in the right, as they clearly were not.

 > The key point is we don't know what the women said when the police talked to them.

Being a bit rude or obnoxious to a Police Officer isn't an offence.  It's a good way to get the law applied to the letter (might have been worth a quick check over their car to ensure the tyres weren't bald, for example?), but if the law hasn't been broken then it doesn't provide a means of punishment.

> Other people who drove there left without an FPN after the police spoke to them.

Perhaps the officers realised they'd been silly?

> The irony in all this is I'm defending principles of law and how society can forget that and undermine the policing of a pandemic. In terms of policing in Derbyshire, personally I'd much rather the police focus on pubic indoor spaces where the commonly viewed breaches of regulation will much more likely be spreading C19. 

Agreed, they would be better off leaving the outdoor spaces alone (there is still very little evidence of outdoor spread).  They would be better doing some traditional beat policing - walking round neighbourhoods watching for people going in homes who don't look like they live there and pulling them up[1], and with a list of people who are isolating and checking that they don't go out, as it's those two sets of people that are causing much of the problem.

As things stand I would be very happy for the law to be being enforced strictly, provided it is the law.  Plenty of people are blatently breaking it, go and get those people.

[1] Though "support bubbles" pose an issue.  Much as I benefit from one, I'm slightly surprised they weren't either suspended or some sort of registration requirement put in place, which would also help track and trace in the event of one of them getting infected.

Post edited at 09:19
3
 Philb1950 09 Jan 2021
In reply to rj_townsend:

The travel restrictions are a recommendation and have no basis in law. I would assume a court would overturn the fine, although I suspect the police will drop it before more embarrassment. A drink! I think the officer is a sandwich short of a picnic.

2
 S Ramsay 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

The facts are as good as proved here. The police back up the women's account and they have duly been given a slap on the wrist by the NPCC. If Derbyshire police had a leg to stand on then they wouldn't be giving in like this.

I also fail to see how you're defending the principles of law here, surely the key one being, you are free to do things that aren't against the law.

This isn't a minor civil liberties issues, this a Derbyshire Police ruling by a whim with no reference to the law and it needs coverage now so that it is stamped out at the earliest opportunity.

If the law had said 5 miles max driving from your house then I would have no objection to the application of the law if if personally I thought it a bit pointless restriction.

There are plenty of government guidelines that aren't law. 14 units a week, 5 portions of fruit and veg per day. Failing to observe these can put increased pressure on the NHS. Do you want to see the police involved in making sure that these are adhered to?

1
 Offwidth 09 Jan 2021
In reply to S Ramsay:

Please show me where the police back the womens account.

5
 arch 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Just think how much money in fines the Police could collect if they stationed themselves outside this takeaway ??

https://www.fourcountiesspice.com/

 GrahamD 09 Jan 2021
In reply to S Ramsay:

Of course this is a minor civil liberties issue.

1
 wercat 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'd forbid journeys of "such a length or of such a nature as materially to risk carrying infection to another locality, region or community".   Distance specificaion is too problematic to be reasonably enforceable.  We have to hammer down on conduct likely to spread the virus and 90% of that surely will be indoors or in non rural public spaces.

Post edited at 11:24
2
In reply to wercat:

> I'd forbid journeys of "such a length as to risk carrying infection to another locality or region".

Not clear enough.  The law should always be specific, clear and enforceable and not resort to arbitrary matters like this.  It should always be possible for people to know easily if they are complying with it.

There's good reason why, for example, a specific anti-mobile-phone law was required for road safety - Driving Without Due Care and Attention is just too vague and incredibly hard to prosecute.

 wercat 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

there is also consederable and justifiable precedent for drafting proper legislation of the kind I have described.  The rules you are discussing are not even expressed clearly or completely.  Including lots of specific cases does not make satisfactory legislation.

plus, in all this intricate diktat, you are not focusing on what really is causing the damage - social interaction, shared contact and aerosol laden atmosphere.

Post edited at 11:28
In reply to wercat:

It depends.  If you expected every case to go to Court you could rely on the route of the setting of legal precedent.  But any "strict liability" legislation, where enforcement is primarily through the issue of fixed penalties and the opportunity to "refine" the law doesn't really exist in that way, needs to be totally specific.

> plus, in all this intricate diktat, you are not focusing on what really is causing the damage - social interaction, shared contact and aerosol laden atmosphere.

Which driving your car and taking outdoor exercise alone tends not to do, so maybe this whole debate is pointless.  It really becomes a problem when you go far enough that you have to stop for fuel, to use the loo or to go in a shop.  A time restriction of say two hours would deal with that well enough, and you could choose if you wanted to drive half an hour each way and exercise for an hour, or whether you preferred a two hour trip from your front door.  (An hour is too short).

That would be easy enough to enforce, too - get Google Maps out, would it take you more than an hour to go home?  If so, guilty.

If you mean I should be accepting and deferent to this poorly drafted and poorly interpreted legislation, then no, I won't - I will follow it, but I will not support it.  There is no situation, even the present, under which fairness and civil liberties are not vitally important.  That doesn't mean I oppose restrictions; it means them being imposed and enforced in an evidence-based, justifiable, clear and fair manner at all times so one can always know when one is on the right side of them, and so no activities that genuinely don't pose any considerable risk (such as driving 6 miles to walk round a lake) are prohibited.

What the Police need to be doing, primarily, is going round residential streets in a traditional on-foot beat manner, and weeding out people going in each others' houses.  That is causing most spread, and so that is how they could be best used.  And the law relating to that is very clear.

Post edited at 11:38
 wercat 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I certainly won't be accepting the incompetently expressed regulations word for word and I will be doing everything I can to avoid coming into contact with and hence spreading the virus

I'm not sure I even accept the authority of the current tory party to make decisions for me as they are just youngish career politicians who don't seem to know anything about doing things properly.  I simply do not trust them at all and I don't consider myself bound by words from people I don't trust at all.   I am bound by a duty not to spread COVID and as my own health and age put me at risk I will certainly observe that duty.

 Andy Johnson 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

I'm very supportive of the need for the lockdowns and generally supportive of how the law and guidance have been drafted.

But...

Reading about how the police behaved towards these two people just re-enforces the feeling I've had for a few years now that people in the lower ranks of the police force are (a) just not very bright, and (b) worryingly authoritarian. I've never been "in trouble" with the police but I have had a few interactions with them over the years and they've been pretty uniformly rubbish and indifferent.

It's kind of off topic, but I sometimes wonder what the police would do if we had a properly malicious government passing properly oppressive laws. Would they enforce them? My guess is they mostly would, with a fair amount of enthusiasm in many cases.

(Obvs: bring on the downvotes.)

1
 fred99 09 Jan 2021
In reply to rj_townsend:

> I'm making the wild assumption that the two ladies in question can read. Any fixed penalty document from a police officer will have it clearly stated how to make payment, how to appeal and how to refuse and go to court. If they've been reported and will have the penalty notice sent to them (as one of the reports suggested) it will be stated on that.

We can (nearly) all read, however an incident such as this induces stress in the "victim", and I'll guarantee that the PC's indulged in a "tag-team" method of speaking to them (without any opportunity of legal advice), also guaranteed to induce stress and prevent any chance of an "equal" discourse. And if it goes to court - a major hassle for the accused, but some time in a nice warm office and then a day in court with a late start and early finish for the PC - which is nicer ?

> Oh grow up. The bar for a conviction on resisting arrest is set high enough for it not to be worth the officer's hassle in a case like this.

You'd be amazed at how low some PC's will go to arrest someone just because they don't like the look of them. These women can just be glad they aren't darker skinned !

4
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Not clear enough.  The law should always be specific, clear and enforceable and not resort to arbitrary matters like this.  It should always be possible for people to know easily if they are complying with it.

That's what the guidance is for and as stipulated in the legislation:
Guidance and advice is likely to be based on legislation (in which case it will be legally binding) and it might offer the best or most appropriate way to adhere to the law.
In other words, follow the guidance and you'll be within the law.
There will obviously be fuzzy areas, but do you really expect the legislation to be so detailed so as to cover every single scenario and for every single Freeman Wannabe/Barrack Room lawyer?

1
In reply to Luke90:

Hampshire Police are making far worse headlines to be fair.

 fred99 09 Jan 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Derbyshire police appear to be acting on a definition of local that seems fairly reasonable, that if you are getting in the car and driving to Derbyshire from another county, then you are not local and not exercising at your nearest open space.

What a stupid statement.

Derby itself is far closer to both Nottingham and Leicester than the west (and indeed rest) of Derbyshire by a long way, which demonstrates that just because your are INSIDE one county rather than travelling into another doesn't mean you are travelling less.

How often do Derbyshire Police actually HAVE to drive outside of their own county boundaries to take the shortest (or maybe in poor weather the safest) route to somewhere else in Derbyshire ?

(Remember, they don't HAVE to leave the county, but going the long way around might require using their brains - and a map rather than SatNav !)

Will they issue fines to themselves every time they do so ?

Will they say "mea culpa" and admit full guilt and refuse to appeal ?

Will they lock themselves up for repeated "breaches" of their own made-up version of the law ?

3
 marsbar 09 Jan 2021
In reply to fred99:

To be clear I didn't say they are being sensible I just said this was their logic.  

Unlike Scottish rules, English rules are not clear. 

Anyone would think the PM didn't make it clear so that the police who are trying to do a job without proper information get blamed instead of him.  

I worked for Derbyshire at one time, I'm well aware of the county layout.  

In reply to FactorXXX:

That would be so if there weren't a load of elements of the guidance that didn't feature in the law.

 THE.WALRUS 09 Jan 2021
In reply to fred99:

> These women can just be glad they aren't darker skinned !

So, what would have happened if they were dark skinned?

4
In reply to Neil Williams:

> That would be so if there weren't a load of elements of the guidance that didn't feature in the law.

It's how the legislation has been interpreted by UK Gov and the CPS.
In the case of UK Gov guidance, it's so the public has an easy set of rules to follow so that they don't have to spend a lifetime trying to understand the complicated language used in the legislation.
In the case of the CPS, it is the guidelines that they will use when it comes to deciding on whether to proceed with prosecuting, etc.
As stipulated in the legislation, follow the guidance and you'll stay within the law. If you think the guidance is incorrect to the degree that you can effectively ignore it, then go for it.  However, don't be surprised if the Police issue you with a fine and further don't be surprised that if it goes to court that the Judiciary will side with the prosecution as opposed to some bloke arguing the toss because he's decided that the guidance and legislation don't tally.  

 Lankyman 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> Yea I would, but people from Cheshire don’t have a strong accent, and because some people from the former accent area visit the local vicinity and cause chaos for the rest of us then it was worth a mention. Calm down la


Put it this way - if they'd had strong Asian accents would you have commented? As a  Liverpudlian I'm increasingly unamused by folks perpetuating seventies-type stereotypes so please don't. Cockneys don't wear pearly suits and I've never owned a shell suit (although my brother did several decades ago but we don't mention it any more).

1
In reply to FactorXXX:

> It's how the legislation has been interpreted by UK Gov and the CPS.

No, it's not.  Not in this case.

> In the case of UK Gov guidance, it's so the public has an easy set of rules to follow so that they don't have to spend a lifetime trying to understand the complicated language used in the legislation.

Yes, it's this - it's not an interpretation of the law.  It's a bit more like building regulations approved documents.  You have to achieve X, here is one way to achieve it.

> In the case of the CPS, it is the guidelines that they will use when it comes to deciding on whether to proceed with prosecuting, etc.

They will to an extent (where the guidance actually is referred to by the law, which distance travelled isn't).  They won't when it comes to something that isn't legislated at all, and Derbyshire Police have now confirmed this themselves, so I don't know why people keep pushing otherwise here.

> As stipulated in the legislation, follow the guidance and you'll stay within the law. If you think the guidance is incorrect to the degree that you can effectively ignore it, then go for it.  However, don't be surprised if the Police issue you with a fine and further don't be surprised that if it goes to court that the Judiciary will side with the prosecution as opposed to some bloke arguing the toss because he's decided that the guidance and legislation don't tally.  

I have no intention of breaching the guidance as I think it is reasonable.  However, I am very, very strongly of the view that the Police have no business enforcing things that aren't law (because that is a very, very dangerous thing to get into), and it seems Derbyshire do now agree with this.

If the Government wanted to bring the guidance for distance travelled into the law, all they'd have to do is add "a reasonable distance from home" to the exercise clause.  As it's not there, leaving the home to exercise is defined as a reasonable excuse - end of.  It's only if the trip could be interpreted as not exercise but instead something else (e.g. driving a long distance for a picnic and a very short incidental wander) where that would be in genuine breach.

However, I am strongly of the view that anything which is prosecuted via a fixed penalty does need to be defined to an absolute extent.  Driving a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit is an example - absolute and simple.  So perhaps that does mean some COVID offences could be FPN-able (e.g. "being in a house you don't live in and not legally eligible to be in a support bubble") but not this discretionary stuff.  Or just make travel absolute with a fixed radius as most sensible countries have done.

Post edited at 13:27
1
In reply to Neil Williams:

> No, it's not.  Not in this case.
> Yes, it's this - it's not an interpretation of the law.  It's a bit more like building regulations approved documents.  You have to achieve X, here is one way to achieve it.

From the legislation:
Guidance and advice is likely to be based on legislation

> They will to an extent (where the guidance actually is referred to by the law, which distance travelled isn't).  They won't when it comes to something that isn't legislated at all, and Derbyshire Police have now confirmed this themselves, so I don't know why people keep pushing otherwise here.

As per above.

In reply to FactorXXX:

The guidance, in this case, was written before the legislation.

Can you give a reference to where you obtained that quote from?

Post edited at 13:28
1
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Can you give a reference to where you obtained that quote from?

It's from the Coronavirus Legislation, one of the first sections on the first page:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/coronavirus


In reply to FactorXXX:

The full paragraph (which is NOT part of the legislation, rather an introduction to its context) reads:

What is the difference between legislation and guidance?

To find out exactly what the rules are during the coronavirus pandemic, you need to look at both legislation and government guidance. Legislation sets out legal obligations and restrictions that are enforceable by law. If you do not abide by the legislation you are breaking the law. Guidance and advice is likely to be based on legislation (in which case it will be legally binding) and it might offer the best or most appropriate way to adhere to the law.

The law is what you must do; the guidance might be a mixture of what you must do and what you should do.

The last paragraph, which you omitted, is very important.

It's basically the same as the Highway Code.  The MUSTs are law, the SHOULDs are what is recommended best practice, and are unlikely to be prosecutable on their own, though could influence something like a DWDCAA charge (which doesn't exist for COVID).

Post edited at 13:34
 wercat 09 Jan 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

it's not from the legislation, it's from a web page explaining where the legislation is to be found, and a few other points.  It is no more legislation than "You must answer all the questions in section 1 of this paper and 3 of the questions from section 2" is part of of an exam.

Post edited at 13:42
 wercat 09 Jan 2021

plus, guidance is not law unless the whole and exact content of the guidance appears in the law itself.

any differences destroy the accuracy of the guidance as a simplified description of the law.

 Tom V 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

> As a  Liverpudlian I'm increasingly unamused by folks perpetuating seventies-type stereotypes so please don't.

Most cies and counties have  stereotypes of them portrayed in the media, comedy shows etc. but happily most regions are capable of a bit of humorous self-deprecation as well.

 Tom V 09 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I think Fred is implying that they were lucky they didn't get their necks knelt on. 

2
 toad 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Derbyshire Police are now reviewing all their fixed penalty fines after having their arses ki....after receiving revised guidance on how to enforce covid restrictions, and what they actually ARE.

 davidalcock 09 Jan 2021
In reply to all. 

Obviously everything is extremely stressful and depressing. Why are we arguing? They were within their rights. Probably most of us act and exceed the guidance. But still. I don't know if courts are done remotely for issues like this. If not, I'd probably pay up to reduce risk of transmission. I would absolutely contest it if (ha) there wasn't a risk. 

Tomorrow or Monday I need to travel within my support bubble. Gloucestershire to Sheffield. I wouldn't if there wasn't a certain degree of care issues. I also wouldn't have driven for exercise. If I'm stopped I'll contest. Not 'ideal', but perfectly legal. 

I've almost continually behaved better than the first lockdown rules since mid February bar that brief summer interlude. 

We're all pissed-off and exhausted. Maybe it's time to be mutually supportive on here, rather than this constant sniping.

Ok, I've said my piece. 

1
 THE.WALRUS 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Tom V:

Oh, right. I'm just trying to get to grips with his logic. Seems to be;

Because George Floyd was murdered by a violent, racist white police officer in the Minneapolis last year, the white officers who stopped these two women in Derbyshire last week are also violent racists. And, had their two 'victims' been black, they would have been attacked.

Whatsmore, any interaction between white police officers and anyone with dark skin is likely to lead to be police violence. Because all white police officers are violent racists.

Did I get this right?

Post edited at 15:17
2
 fred99 09 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> So, what would have happened if they were dark skinned?

Go to any inner city with a sizeable number of persons of Afro-Caribbean ancestry and ask that question - I dare you !

5
 fred99 09 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Whatsmore, any interaction between white police officers and anyone with dark skin is likely to lead to be police violence. Because all white police officers are violent racists.

> Did I get this right?

No, you didn't, you deliberately caricatured my suggestion.

NOT all white Police Officers are violent racists. However they do still exist, and none of the forces have truly eliminated them from their numbers, nor do they actually deal with them pro-actively, but only when they do something that they can't cover up.

At the very least, anyone who is NOT evidently from a nice middle or upper class background can unfortunately expect to run into the Police at some time in their lives and be treated somewhat less than civilly no matter they have done nothing wrong.

Todays Police Officers may have gone to training schools where they were taught the right way, but when they got to their stations, they would have been taken under the wing of older Officers for the on-the-job training. These older Officers would have come from a "less enlightened" era, and would themselves have been instructed by persons from yet earlier.

Too many Officers have the attitude, as one said to me "I'm a Police Officer, I am the law". This from someone I had known since he was a youngster at the local athletic club, formerly regarded as a decent kid, who had only just finished training and was a matter of weeks into being a Probationer.

When I say too many - I mean one is too many. Unfortunately there are a number, albeit a small number, and until Police Officers get rid of the idea that informing on these Officers is "snitching" and they aren't supposed to do it, then they will continue, and just like any bad apples will contaminate the entire barrel.

6
 fred99 09 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Back to Derbyshire Police and their "attitude" to people in Covid;

Someone has come up with this way of working and dealing with people that has now been changed. That person needs to be identified, as he/she is at best misdirected in their approach, and at worst is someone who overly enjoys the power they think a uniform gives them.

At the head of the force is the Chief Constable. This person is either responsible for the approach, or responsible for poor management. Either way he (?) needs to answer for the situation because right now Derbyshire Constabulary do not not have a very high confidence rating across this country.

4
 Bacon Butty 09 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Because all white police officers are violent racists.

Pretty much so.

I've held a very long belief that a significant proportion of coppers are just legalised thugs/criminals/racists.

15
 Yanis Nayu 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

Is the transmissibility of Covid proportionate to your distance from home?

 Blunderbuss 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Bacon Butty:

> Pretty much so.

> I've held a very long belief that a significant proportion of coppers are just legalised thugs/criminals/racists.

On the basis of what? 

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Is the transmissibility of Covid proportionate to your distance from home?

It's more about the new variant being more prevalent in some areas than others.  There'd be no point in travel restriction guidance if it wasn't, and indeed this was relaxed in May/June (or thereabouts) long before things like hospitality were reopened.

Post edited at 18:02
1
 GrahamD 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Bacon Butty:

> Pretty much so.

> I've held a very long belief that a significant proportion of coppers are just legalised thugs/criminals/racists.

What proportion are you talking ? Do you include my daughter in law and my niece amongst them ? Because right now they are having a really hard time as police front line workers and they could really do with your support right now.

4
 Yanis Nayu 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

That’s a fair point, although I think that particular horse has bolted. 

 Tom V 09 Jan 2021
In reply to fred99:

Your comment implied  that the police in this incident were likely to be  racist, hence it was lucky the two woman weren't black or mixed race. From that it's fair to assume that you consider most UK police to be racist.

If those are your opinions, so be it: you will get a lot of support, a fair amount from UKC probably.

Post edited at 18:50
3
 THE.WALRUS 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Bacon Butty:

> Pretty much so.

> I've held a very long belief that a significant proportion of coppers are just legalised thugs/criminals/racists.

Well, you're in like-minded company amongst a significant proportion of posters on UKC....but that's the internet for you. 

I considered writing a sensible retort to your post. But, if that's really what you think, there isn't any point. 

Post edited at 22:51
2
 THE.WALRUS 09 Jan 2021
In reply to fred99:

I work in South Manchester, which is extremely diverse.

People here seem to be quite aware that Moss Side isn't Minneapolis and they are able to peacefully interact with the police, regardless of skin-colour.

I'm really not sure where you're getting all of this from; presumably some kind of lockdown-triggered critical race theory neurosis.

Seems to be quite common, nowadays; particularly the obsession with racism. Especially when it isn't there.

Post edited at 23:14
1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

South Manchester is in my experience quite good for race relations, possibly because it's quite symbiotic - the (mostly white and well-off) students put lots of money in the tills of everyone else.

If you went to Oldham, say, things are quite different.

1
 THE.WALRUS 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

So, the residents of Oldham all live in fear of police brutality, along with every other BAME city dweller?

This seems to be the picture fred99 is trying to paint. 

I'd be interested to see the evidence.

 Tom V 09 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'd be interested to hear your experience of living in Oldham. On return visits my impression is that like a lot of other towns and cities there is a voluntary degree of segregation resulting in some areas being completely Asian in character and some mainly white.

You might think this is undesirable but I'm not sure that it automatically indicates poorer relations between the police and the different communities. 

Post edited at 00:03
 Albert Tatlock 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Bacon Butty:

> Pretty much so.

> I've held a very long belief that a significant proportion of coppers are just legalised thugs/criminals/racists.

Do you include BAME officers in that sweeping generalisation?

In reply to Tom V:

> I'd be interested to hear your experience of living in Oldham. On return visits my impression is that like a lot of other towns and cities there is a voluntary degree of segregation resulting in some areas being completely Asian in character and some mainly white.

> You might think this is undesirable

I certainly do.

> but I'm not sure that it automatically indicates poorer relations between the police and the different communities. 

I don't know about the Police specifically (the point I was replying to was not specific), but speaking generally there is a significant race relations problem (in both directions) in Oldham.  I would expect the Police probably deal with this to some extent by considering who they deploy where if possible.

1
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> So, the residents of Oldham all live in fear of police brutality, along with every other BAME city dweller?

No, where did I say that?

1
 S Ramsay 10 Jan 2021

And now Matt Hancock is backing Derbyshire police after the NPCC has pointed out that the women were not breaking the law!!??? You expect it from Priti Patel but I thought that Hancock was slightly more intelligent than that.

Should I have been fined yesterday? I went for a three hour walk from my house. In doing so I passed through a neighbouring village. Guidelines say stick within your own town. If these women should have been fined then so should I. The police are going to have a f*cking field day

2
In reply to S Ramsay:

> And now Matt Hancock is backing Derbyshire police after the NPCC has pointed out that the women were not breaking the law!!??? You expect it from Priti Patel but I thought that Hancock was slightly more intelligent than that.

So you'd think but clearly not.  I think he's panicking about having this disaster on his record and this affecting both his political career and future after-dinner speaking work...

Patel, nasty piece of work she is, has done exactly as you expect.

> Should I have been fined yesterday? I went for a three hour walk from my house. In doing so I passed through a neighbouring village. Guidelines say stick within your own town. If these women should have been fined then so should I. The police are going to have a f*cking field day

You have very clearly not broken any law by doing so.

3
 wercat 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

that is the irony - I could go for a 2 or three hour walk round here and pass lots of people and go through several villages.

If I get up in the dark and drive in the dark to a roadhead some miles away but still in the area I can go out for a half day and not come within several hundred metres of anyone (I'm a misanthrope at the moment so it suits me    )

Post edited at 12:46
2
 deepsoup 10 Jan 2021
In reply to S Ramsay:

> And now Matt Hancock is backing Derbyshire police after the NPCC has pointed out that the women were not breaking the law!!??? You expect it from Priti Patel but I thought that Hancock was slightly more intelligent than that.

Quite the contrast isn't it, to the entire cabinet and even the Attorney General bending over backwards to find excuses for Dominic Cummings 8 months ago.

1
In reply to deepsoup:

> Quite the contrast isn't it, to the entire cabinet and even the Attorney General bending over backwards to find excuses for Dominic Cummings 8 months ago.

That it is, isn't it.

If there is another Cummings, e.g. Bozza goes for a jolly for an eye test, I wonder what will happen then?

1
 Andrew Wells 10 Jan 2021

It's not really particularly controversial to say the police are institutionally racist; society is institutionally racist. It's more that the consequence of institutionalised police racism can be extreme and severe damage people's lives.

Anyway that's a bit of an aside. I support the police in the lockdown but I think that I'd definitely expect them to lead with a soft touch, and I don't trust police to interpret loose laws as they inevitably come down on the side of whatever backs up the police officer being able to tell you do what they want you to do.

I feel that it's perfectly reasonable to be cautious around the fuzz; a police officer with a grudge against you can make your life very difficult (which isn't to say that all, or even a majority of them do anything like that, but that some do makes it a reasonable level of wariness IMO). In this circumstance they were wrong to issue the penalty, they intimidated law abiding members of the public, they should apologise. 

Post edited at 14:05
2
 fred99 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Bacon Butty:

> Pretty much so.

> I've held a very long belief that a significant proportion of coppers are just legalised thugs/criminals/racists.

I would like to point out, for the record, that I disagree with your opinion as to "significant".

There are some, but they are a (quite) small minority.

The only problem is that they are not removed quickly enough.

 fred99 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Tom V:

> Your comment implied  that the police in this incident were likely to be  racist, hence it was lucky the two woman weren't black or mixed race. From that it's fair to assume that you consider most UK police to be racist.

> If those are your opinions, so be it: you will get a lot of support, a fair amount from UKC probably.

No. But if one of the four Officers was, then unfortunately experience shows the others are not very likely to turn on such a person and stop them being "somewhat biased" in their behaviour.

It is this code of unquestioning solidarity that needs challenging - and the removing of Officers who shouldn't be in the force in the first place. I understand and wholeheartedly agree that Police Officers should back each other up, but not when one of their own is in the wrong.

1
 fred99 10 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I work in South Manchester, which is extremely diverse.

> People here seem to be quite aware that Moss Side isn't Minneapolis and they are able to peacefully interact with the police, regardless of skin-colour.

> I'm really not sure where you're getting all of this from; presumably some kind of lockdown-triggered critical race theory neurosis.

> Seems to be quite common, nowadays; particularly the obsession with racism. Especially when it isn't there.

I'm just south of the West Midlands, and their reputation isn't exactly the best. I also have a number of friends and colleagues who live there, from a pretty diverse range of backgrounds, and that's a factor in my opinions.

Also my sister is a retired Officer, and her take on things is only marginally different.

1
 fred99 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> It's not really particularly controversial to say the police are institutionally racist; society is institutionally racist. It's more that the consequence of institutionalised police racism can be extreme and severe damage people's lives.

> Anyway that's a bit of an aside. I support the police in the lockdown but I think that I'd definitely expect them to lead with a soft touch, and I don't trust police to interpret loose laws as they inevitably come down on the side of whatever backs up the police officer being able to tell you do what they want you to do.

Agreed.

Surely it's not beyond the ability of senior Police Officers (ACPO) to have a "zoom" call or whatever, and agree a NATIONAL set of rules/guidelines, within and as per the law, to be set for ALL Police Officers from ALL forces to operate under, that the main population can understand.

Far better than differing (and indeed neighbouring) forces having different "rules of engagement"  (for want of a better term).

When 2 women from separate vehicles walking apart less than 10 miles from their own homes can be fined in one county, yet supporters of Julian Assange can be seen on national TV without masks, hugging and kissing in central London and nothing happens. Also "ravers" attending a rave in numbers of two or three hundred (or more ?), yet only the organisers are fined (Birmingham and Bedfordshire in case you ask - there are others).

Who is more dangerous to society regarding the transmission of the virus ? - I'd go with the ravers and the huggers and kissers every time - or rather those are the people I'd feel far safer with having locked up for 14 days to reduce "R".

1
 gimmergimmer 10 Jan 2021

Twice I've  travelled 50 mins in car to a completely lonely stretch of moor. Felt safe and peaceful. Meanwhile being a good boy- locally I've been for regular runs and walks on local bridleway. Avoiding people and ice and mud there  very tricky. And narrowly missed being hit by speeding cyclists- which is the closest i've come to a serious accident. 

1
 THE.WALRUS 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

> It's not really particularly controversial to say the police are institutionally racist; society is institutionally racist. 

Actually, outside of social science faculties and left-wing activism it is very controversial to accuse society in general, everyone and everything, of racism.

Indeed, to many people, this is where the real racism lies.

Critical Race Theory is only a theory, afterall.

Post edited at 17:18
2
 Andrew Wells 10 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Saying society is institutionally racist isn't saying that everyone and everything is racist (although I actually think that everyone on some level is, because we're raised in a racist society, including myself, and we have to try to unlearn unconscious biases and such etc etc etc).

It's saying that society is systemically racist i.e. people of certain races receive demonstrably higher incomes, better healthcare, better housing, less severe police attention, more political influence etc. And it is. Provably. The "cultural marxism!" brigade tend to ignore that rather inconvenient truth.

Post edited at 18:48
4
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Critical Race Theory is only a theory, afterall.

As are both general and special relativity, but your satelite based GPS won't work right without considering them

2
 r0x0r.wolfo 10 Jan 2021
In reply to Niall_H:

> As are both general and special relativity, but your satelite based GPS won't work right without considering them

What does critical race theory get me? 5G? 

 off-duty 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

To be honest, I can't be bothered reading the whole thread.

Have Derbyshire overstepped the mark? Yes probably.

Right from the word go I have said this is a public health problem that could never be solved by legislation and policing.

We've got COVID denialists (who would have thought they would even exist) lined up with "lockdown skeptics" (whatever TF they are, mostly seem to be 'denialist lite') and a whole array of legal commentators ready to criticise any policing mistakes as 'thin end of the wedge stasi, heavy handed police'.

Social media seems disproportionately full of those against the restrictions, on comparison to real life, where the majority comply.

There are a significant minority whining about being able to judge things for themselves and take 'carefully considered' risks, while abrogating any responsibility for the impact of everyone decided to act similarly selfishly.

In the meantime we have a stratospheric death rate, I know at least 6 colleagues who have either been hospitalised or seriously affected, and we are still tasked with policing the impossible for the ungrateful.

Crack on. Do what you want. If NHS professionals in tears can't convince you, if watching your parents discuss DNR decisions as their limited time on CPAP ticks on doesn't curtail your behaviour, then I'm not sure a £200 fine will have any impact. 

Blame the police. Blame the government. Whatever you do, don't blame yourself...

4
 Andy Gamisou 11 Jan 2021
In reply to wercat:

> .... (I'm a misanthrope at the moment so it suits me    )

I hate these fair weather misanthropes.  Gives us dedicated misanthopists a good name.

 Bacon Butty 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> I hate these fair weather misanthropes.  Gives us dedicated misanthopists a good name.


You're not alone, my friend.

Err, hang on, need to re-think that

In reply to off-duty:

> Blame the police. Blame the government. Whatever you do, don't blame yourself...

I fear you're slightly missing the point of what I'm arguing, which is simply that only the law should be enforced by Police and that things that presently aren't the law shouldn't be.  That does mean the law will need to be stricter, which I'm not opposed to, and is already the case in Scotland and Wales (e.g. in Wales, the use of motor vehicles for exercise is not permitted except if you have a disability rendering it impossible to exercise directly from home).  It looks like such a tightening of the law will come, which I support.  Then, and only then, should it be enforced.

I don't oppose restrictions and I don't oppose enforcement.  What I oppose is enforcement not being only of the law, or of the law being ambiguous so there's too much local discretion.

Sure, that wouldn't be an issue if people were complying with the guidelines as well as the law, the situation couldn't arise then (which is why there's zero chance of me being pulled up, because I am).  But that isn't the point.  Bad laws lead to bad enforcement.  I see no reason why the guidance and law should differ, they should be the same and simply be "the restrictions".  It's backbench Tory MPs this is to placate, and it's stupid.

Post edited at 07:18
3
In reply to off-duty:

Good to hear from you, and hope you and your colleagues are doing OK.

 deepsoup 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I fear you're slightly missing the point of what I'm arguing

Dude, he said he couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread and who could blame him while he's "off-duty"?  The response was to the thread, generally, there's no obligation to respond to the nuance of any individual post and given the stresses of a job that entails seeing people at their absolute worst much of the time right now I think having a bit of a vent is completely understandable.  I sincerely hope off-duty won't be drawn into an endless nit-picky debate about this, for the sake of their mental health it's probably the last thing a copper should be doing on their day off.

Told you what you wanted to hear though:
"Have Derbyshire overstepped the mark? Yes probably."

It seems Derbyshire police have wound their collective neck in somewhat since then anyway.
And meanwhile, in South Yorkshire:
https://www.facebook.com/southyorkshirepolice/posts/10157887238293097

Post edited at 09:43
In reply to deepsoup:

SY clearly got it right there.  FWIW, though, I think we will see stricter restrictions so it genuinely won't be allowed, and I don't oppose such restrictions - I just oppose things that aren't the law being enforced - the correct way to tighten restrictions is to tighten the law - and keep it clear and simple.

Post edited at 09:48
 kevin stephens 11 Jan 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> There are a significant minority whining about being able to judge things for themselves and take 'carefully considered' risks, while abrogating any responsibility for the impact of everyone decided to act similarly selfishly.

THIS ^

Particular prevalent in UKC 

1
 Ramblin dave 11 Jan 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> There are a significant minority whining about being able to judge things for themselves and take 'carefully considered' risks, while abrogating any responsibility for the impact of everyone decided to act similarly selfishly.

> In the meantime we have a stratospheric death rate, I know at least 6 colleagues who have either been hospitalised or seriously affected, and we are still tasked with policing the impossible for the ungrateful.

> Crack on. Do what you want. If NHS professionals in tears can't convince you, if watching your parents discuss DNR decisions as their limited time on CPAP ticks on doesn't curtail your behaviour, then I'm not sure a £200 fine will have any impact. 

> Blame the police. Blame the government. Whatever you do, don't blame yourself...

Oh FFS can we please stop acting like "I think it's probably safer to drive five miles to exercise somewhere where I can socially distance more easily" is the same as "I'm too selfish to care about the pandemic so I'm going to do whatever I want". Personally I'm sticking to exercising from home rather than getting in the car for the moment, but acting like anyone who's called that one differently is a SELFISH EVIL MONSTER achieves nothing apart from shredding everyone's mental health even further than it's already gone.

3
 wercat 11 Jan 2021
In reply to off-duty:

"if watching your parents discuss DNR decisions as their limited time on CPAP"

both dead, and my younger sister

if having heart problems in the family that killed my dad and his brother early plus having chest problems from last winter doesn's sharpen my dudgement of risk then I'm a Dutchman.   I've done nothing to spread or acquire infection during the pandemic except unavoidable obligations and that is the way I will continue.  I can't say that of the govt.  Brexit has lost us thousands of EU NHS workers and that is many deaths the tories could have avoided

ps, I have socialised this year with friends, entirely via radio - I think I'm taking things seriously and I follow the science.

*** no offence intended to Dutch Men or Women! Just an old fashioned figure of eight speech

Post edited at 10:42
4
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'm finding it's exactly the same as Brexit.  Most people fit into two extremes, and all of those people hate the moderates who sit in the middle.

3
 Ramblin dave 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I'm finding it's exactly the same as Brexit.  Most people fit into two extremes, and all of those people hate the moderates who sit in the middle.


It's an incredibly difficult and stressful situation, but this sort of extreme with-us-or-against-us argument about what are honestly very marginal decisions is really unhelpful.

 toad 11 Jan 2021
In reply to off-duty:

But this was premeditated, wasn't it? A large group of people with a history of chaotic and dangerous behaviour went to deliberately intimidate and frighten a pair of people who were acting both legally and, more importantly, in the spirit of the lock down regs. 

I entirely respect that the police  run towards what we run away from, but the price of that is you are much more likely to be carriers... so, what was the purpose of this? It wasn't enforcement, was initially? it was to generate column inches. 90 seconds of TV. Congratulations. That objective was successfully achieved.

And the cost? These officers  and their commanding officers planned to deliberately and recklessly endanger these ladies lives for a PR stunt.

Not quite so morally unambiguous, eh?

7
In reply to toad:

FWIW I've noticed in all these cases that the Police have been pictured unmasked and within 2m of the people they were enforcing against.  I don't think, at a small risk of them running away, this is appropriate.

Clearly they need to be within 2m to arrest, but not otherwise.

Post edited at 12:02
 THE.WALRUS 11 Jan 2021
In reply to toad:

What utter bollocks.

The only thing the police have been trying to do for almost a year, now, is prevent the spread of the disease.

You're criticism of them, even when they make mistakes, undermines this effort and contributes towards its spread. 

You are typical of the sizable group of 'whiners' mentioned by OffDuty.

At a time when we should be being altruistic and supportive of the government and its agencies (regardless of how we feel about them) in order to advance the greater-good; you choose to search for loops holes and sneer their efforts. 

I hope you don't get your just deserts.

13
 S Ramsay 11 Jan 2021

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-cycle-7-miles-downing-street-olympic-park-b827961.html

Lolololololol, looking forward to seeing how this is different to the two women in Derbshire. They might have to focus on the tea aspect. Would be good to know if Johnson had a water bottle with him

1
 toad 11 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

ok. This wasn't a mistake by individual officers, which would be entirely understandable, this was a deliberate fishing trip with a view to highlighting a perceived problem  through media coverage. If they had snared a couple travelling from Derby or Leicester, as they probably intended, there wouldn't be a problem, or if they had backed off when they realised they were dealing with an innocent couple (remember they were corrected by their own national standards body) then again, no problem. As it is, the pursuit of the 24 hour news cycle pushed them into an unwise (at best) course of action. AND RECKLESSLY ENDANGERED 2 PEOPLE!! moreover, 2 people who thought they were doing the right thing. 

I'm more than happy to support responsible and proportionate policing, but this was more than just over zealousness. 

2
 THE.WALRUS 11 Jan 2021
In reply to toad:

By turning this kind of mole-hill into a mountain, you aren't supporting 'responsible and proportionate policing'. You're undermining the efforts of 99% of the cops who get it right 99% of the time.

If you really were generally supportive of the police, which you quite clearly aren't, you would be rather more forgiving of their mistakes; I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that this incident wasn't over zealous.

The idea that this had something to do with a Machiavellian, clandestine conspiracy cooked-up by the evil police overlords is nonsense.

Infact it's the kind of paranoid, delusional nonsense which seems to be on the increase as a result the mental strains of lockdown...which people like you are helping to extend.

Get a grip, you silly toad.

Post edited at 15:57
5
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that this incident wasn't over zealous.

I've lost track of which thread we're in, but some people certainly have suggested that they support the actions of the Police in this case, as has Matt Hancock and the nasty piece of work that is Priti Patel.

2
 Bacon Butty 11 Jan 2021
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> You're criticism of them, even when they make mistakes, undermines this effort and contributes towards its spread. 

I would say the total opposite.  Remember we're talking about two defenseless young women, armed only with a paper cup of lukewarm tea, 'surrounded' and intimidated by a gang of Police, kitted out in all their gear.  Bully boy thug tactics.  Just one of the police could have approached the women, at distance, and spoken to them.  This is what antagonizes people, it certainly makes me think 'F*ck the Police'.

I bet you're the type of guy who would empower the police to be able to drag anyone off the street if they didn't like the cut of one's jib.  Not far off what they currently do actually.

4
 THE.WALRUS 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Bacon Butty:

Yes, but you've already passed your opinion that; all police officers are violent racists and your 'belief that a significant proportion of coppers are just legalised thugs/criminals/racists'.

So, it's safe to day that we can disregard your opinion on the matter on the grounds that you're an unbalanced extremist.

Why don't you head back to Booths and panic-bulk buy 6 months supply of bog roll?  You're that kind of guy, aren't you?!

2
 off-duty 11 Jan 2021
In reply to toad:

> But this was premeditated, wasn't it?

Was it? Your claim, you prove it.

> I entirely respect that the police  run towards what we run away from, but the price of that is you are much more likely to be carriers... so, what was the purpose of this? It wasn't enforcement, was initially? it was to generate column inches. 90 seconds of TV. Congratulations. That objective was successfully achieved.

What was the purpose. Well let me put my detective hat on. The police said it was enforcement. The punters said it was enforcement. Everyone's criticising the enforcement.

So yes, clearly it was "to generate column inches"

> And the cost? These officers  and their commanding officers planned to deliberately and recklessly endanger these ladies lives for a PR stunt.

Planned? PR stunt? Looking forward to you demonstrating that.

> Not quite so morally unambiguous, eh?

Utter. Drivel. 

1
In reply to S Ramsay:

> Would be good to know if Johnson had a water bottle with him

He was at the Bristol vaccination 'supercentre' today. The BBC reporter (I'm hoping from their Bristol office) asked him why he had travelled there... Johnson did admit to a bit of a 'gotcha', although he claimed it was work (PR is work, I suppose).

Then again, Rees-Mogg travels from NE Somerset to the HoP for work (when he's not travelling to celebrate mass in Latin), even though plenty of other MPs manage to Zoom. But I suppose that's fair because there's no broadband in the 1850s...

 AJM 11 Jan 2021
In reply to Luke90:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55625062

Fines cancelled and apology issued.....

 deepsoup 11 Jan 2021
In reply to thread:

Aaand...  we're done. 
Case closed?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55625062

Post edited at 20:55

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.