UKC

Reputably from a government source.... lets see if it happens and how many backbench tories explode.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/29/tier-5-england-faces-possible...

Puts the pressure on sturgeon to create a 6th tier (masks optional). 

It would be sensibly so if Scotland were suffering to the same degree as the hotspots in  England. Nowhere in Scotland is a hotspot on the latest Guardian covid map (ie areas over 300 cases per hundred thousand ). Some London districts are above 1400.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/27/coronavirus-uk-covid-cases-an...

I'm considering keeping my 17 year old out of school, especially with the rise of the new variant.
I've managed to avoid the disease to date, I don't want to catch it now with vaccination on the horizon.

I think vaccination being on the horizon is a good reason to go harder - we near-know (bar a resistant strain developing) it will only be N months, rather than back in March when it was open-ended.

There does however need to be a published and viable plan, something the Government seem unable to manage.

The vaccines potentially even offer the opportunity to go for elimination again.

I think something like this is necessary; though not, given the dogged ignorance of some MPs, inevitable.  

To quote Hot Fuzz, "If we don't come down hard on these clowns, we'll be up to our necks in jugglers".  

There's a thought for the days ahead.

T.

Going hard lockdown will reduce total case numbers, too, which reduces the chance of further mutations.

The policy of allowing total case numbers to remain high, and reacting only enough to keep the NHS from breaking encourages the development of random variants, simply due to the increased viral replication.

Though as an aside on that, mutations are not necessarily negative.  This one, it seems, is (because it spreads more easily but isn't less harmful), but viruses generally tend to more infectious but less harmful.  If a mutation that stopped it killing people evolved and became dominant, that would be rather good.

And that's a possibility, because there are 4 common cold coronaviruses knocking about, and none of them regularly put people in hospital unless they are already in very poor health.

I agree with your first point about general mutations being more infectious but less harmful, but I think it's a mistake to suggest that such a mutation becoming dominant would be good.

If such a strain emerged it would only be a good thing if it infected enough people to have a herd immunity effect before the vaccine could give us such an effect.  This seems like a vanishingly small possibility given the imminent mass vaccination programme.  If the variant didn't spread sufficiently to give herd immunity then it would grow alongside the 'old' version, not instead of it.

In reply to geode:

See the trad grading system

But that's not what's happening with the new variant.  It is indeed seeming to be "shutting out" the original somehow.

Hard Very 4

In reply to geode:

Or try it in dubly?

In reply to geode:

i heard there are rumours we may go all the way to tier 11 

Yes, that's true. It's a bit of a gamble, though...

In reply to geode:

Make it go up to eleven...

I think Sturgeon looks much better in a mask

Maybe the suspected increase in viral load has matched a drop in the average severity of infection for a particular viral infection dose? If the IFR is the same something is going on.

The ones with a zip?

Yes.  Look at MERS and SARS.  This virus has only just started adapting its present form to humans.  It’s not a bet I would take right now.

I'm pretty sure the UK has never gone for elimination before.  It would be an entirely sensible thing to do though - the internal economy can function fully, & education can function fully. Now is the time of year to do it as no-one wants to travel.  It's been wonderful to live in a place that eliminated in the spring and kept things under control since. Even when we imported the virus again and it got out into the community it was stamped on quickly because T&T weren't overworked.

To the OP - tier 5 isn't necessarily needed, what is needed is proper enforcement of the existing rules.  We hear of a few hundred people getting fined insignificant amounts for parties etc. but very little proper deterrent fines like the ones people have had here - £3k for popping into a convenience store on the way home from the airport, £10k for multiple breaches.

It's a bit immaterial, since there is little evidence that current T4 restrictions are being followed or enforced. 

Apparently the Police have had to turn Londoners back from the Brecon Beacons today.  Seriously?  Can ANPR not be used to do something about that?

It's all but impossible in resource terms to police Tier 4 (irrespective of what Hancock said); are there any examples of fines in England? Tier 5 if they restrict movement like in the March lockdown wouldn't be anything like as tricky to police. Plus schools would be closed for most, which makes a big difference with the new mutation.

As far as movement goes, other than exercise only being once per day, Tier 4 carries the same restrictions as March did.  It just isn't being policed anything like the same way, and a lot of businesses haven't closed voluntarily that did in March, e.g. building sites, takeaways etc.

Exercise, in England at least, has never been limited to once a day.

Not quite - with tier 4 you can meet one person not in your household outside - with the Spring lockdown you couldnt do that. A significant difference for me (currently in tier 3)

This is just rampant grade inflation now Tier 4 only came in to being a couple of weeks ago surely it's just a hard tier 4?

53k new cases.....going to need Tier Wuhan at this rate. 

It was in the first lockdown.

Why not just say Sturgeon had it right?

Glasgow adjectival system to be introduced in Scotland:

No too bad.

Shit

F*cked.

F*cking f*cked.

Totally f*cking f*cked.

Guidance, not law, to the best of my knowledge...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/uk-police-reissued-with-guida...

(I can't find a link to the actual police guidance itself, but as far as I know the quote in my excerpt is all the law actually said)

Nope. Sorry, wrong.

Once again the government managed to confuse people with the difference between guidance and legislation...

I believe it was in terms of what we were asked to do, but not in terms of the law.  They were never quite in line.

The "1 hour" limit is also being bandied about, not least in the Torygraph, but that never existed in law or guidance, just in Gove's opinion when pressed for a figure on one particularly badly conducted television interview.

It's mostly catching up for cases not reported over Christmas.  The "cases by date of sample" looks bad, but nowhere near as bad as that implies.  If you look at the graph, you can see where the excess would go.

The spike from Christmas day mixing will be in about another 3-5 days, the delay is usually about a week as that's the incubation period.

Haven't you heard about Tier 99 (ETA December 2022)? --- we all live in caves for 6 months, and are then shipped in submarines to Argentina

It is, but those days being reported on today are xmas day - where few samples probably got taken, and sat/sun which always have a depressed sample number.  The key indicator is the average size of sat and sun lows and the Monday spike, and that won’t be resolved until Thursday/Friday.

True.  If anything, only the 7 day running average is in any way reliable, and then only a week later.

There will certainly be an Xmas Day spike...

It was never limited in time.  However it was repeatedly and emphatically limited to ONE FORM of exercise per day.  I am afraid I often broke it wilfully as I walked and ran in the same outing and also walked to the bike shed and then cycled. 

We need something doing to prevent inter regional travel - we've gone from a very low level of infection here to higher than the national average in a very short time - since the new strain was announced at the other end of the country followed almost immediately by detection of an Eden cluster.  We've rocketed since then

You can get a sense of the change by comparing adjacent weekends and the most recent Saturday will be well resolved in 1-2 days from now.

It was, but that was never codified in law for some bizarre reason.

It was also a bit silly in concept, because it would, as written, allow you to drive to a park and run round it, but not cycle to a park and run round it, when the former is to be discouraged more than the latter.

Only those that chose to be confused.  Most are happy to follow guidance because it's the most socially responsible thing to do.  

By not wearing a mask, possibly. 

The uk population is around 65 million, I don't know how many people they need to vaccinate for it to be effective but at the current rate of vaccination (was 137,000 in the first week) but if they needed even to achieve say 70% coverage we are talking about years not weeks to achieve even if we significant increased vaccinations per week.

Looks pretty clear to me, from the government website

”

1. Staying at home

You should only leave or be away from your home for very limited purposes:

shopping for basic necessities, for example food and medicine, which must be as infrequent as possible

one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household

any medical need, including to donate blood, avoid injury or illness, escape risk of harm, or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person

travelling for work purposes, but only where you cannot work from home”

Law or guidance is a moot point, it was a restriction communicated clearly to the population. 

If the AZ/Oxford vaccine gets approval in the next few days, which seems likely it is reasonable for BB to expect to be vaccinated in Feb/Mar.

I think it’s an illusion because people are quoting proportions rather than absolute numbers. The original is going through a process of exponential decay, as restrictions have tightened, this decay rate had increased. At the same time the new variant is exponentially growing, hence the proportion of the new one is increasing and it looks like it is shutting out the old one.

In reply to geode:

Or just call it a lockdown. Politics and a lack of humility at the top. 

Jk

You had to be actually exercising for the "exercise" clause in the March lockdown whereas just visiting an outdoor space if sufficient now. You're right that many organisations shut down voluntarily in the March lockdown but haven't done so during subsequent restrictions though.

It's not a moot point, because you cannot enforce guidance, whereas you can enforce law.

Yes, that's true, though in practice telling people they couldn't stop and sit on the grass for a sandwich during their walk was a bit petty and having very little effect on spread at all.

That said, it probably had more effect in London (where parks would be crowded) than Milton Keynes (where they rarely are) or on a country footpath (which pretty much never are).

Indeed.  We could recreate that situation but we'd have to mandate closure.  I can see that that might happen if necessary - only shops selling primarily (say >50%) non-VATable food allowed to open, perhaps, and any non-food items to be cordoned off as Wales did to reduce the reasons to go.  The reason for this would be that if you go to Tesco you buy at least a week's worth, whereas if you're bingeing on takeaways you are going each time (or someone is going for you) - much, much more contact.

I reckon, though, that schools will do it - it'll probably be another week or so before we see that in the figures.

I’m not a fan of this government or their handling of this Pandemic but I’m starting to see what they’re up against.

They could have avoided it by making the law and the guidance the same.  Having them different, when the whole purpose is to avoid spread to others, is nonsensical.

(I do agree with shielding being guidance, as that was always to protect the individual - mandatorily locking people up because they have a medical condition that would cause risk to only them is about as wrong as you can possibly imagine in my book)

Asymptomatic testing shut down for 3 days from Christmas day, won't make a big dent in reported numbers but may exacerbate the Xmas period spread a little.

Jk

Getting tedious.

She was at a funeral meal and she forgot to put on her mask as soon as she stood up from the table.  People take their masks off to eat.  They also sometimes forget things when they have just been at a funeral.   Not even the Scottish Tories are jumping on her for it.

A Scottish Conservative spokesperson said: “The first minister should know better. By forgetting the rules and failing to set a proper example, she’s undermining essential public health messaging.

“It’s a blunder that an ordinary member of the public wouldn’t get away with. There cannot be one rule for Nicola Sturgeon and another for everyone else.”

Utter bollocks! It’s a blunder that the public get away with all the time. I’ve done it myself, left my office at work and realized I haven’t put a mask on, stood up from a table in the pub to leave and momentarily forgot, do I sit down again to put it on or fish it out of my pocket whilst standing. She’s not undermining anything, the press and those hounding her about it are undermining the message. This wasn’t a Cummings.

This wasn’t a Cummings.

or a Ferrier

Why do you think it makes a difference ? Compliance with the law is consensual in the UK. It can't be enforced if the majority don't comply.  If people don't want to follow very clear guidelines,  why do you think unenforceable law will make a difference?

This is about social responsibility.

Agreed.  Who hasn’t left the house with their fly down or a lace un-done occasionally?  25 years ago running late for work, I jumped on the motorbike in my waterproof overalls without any trousers on.  These things happen, and pillorying someone for it to make a political point is not helpful.

Hey, I totally agree. I just thought it was quite funny that TominEdinburgh of all people had mistakenly given the Conservative Party too much credit for not 'jumping on her for it'. 

There appears to be less and less 'encouragement', or enforcement to make people stick to either rules, the legislation or any 'guidance'

Come to the North East tomorrow, or the day after.  Indeed any day soon.  Visit Whitby.  Or even better, perhaps Robin Hood's Bay, Runswick Bay, Goathland or Staithes.  Doesn't matter, if you can find a parking space have a quick look around.  Lots, and lots and lots of visitors having a nice day out.  They have no shame, many of these visitors are fleeing from Tier 3 & 4 areas, where they are facing tougher restrictions.

I'm getting quite disillusioned  we have lots and lots of people coming from the likes of West Yorkshire,. South Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Teesside, Tyneside and further afield, just for a day out, a few drinks in't pub, fish 'n chips and home again.  

It appears that a drive over to the coast, a wander to the pub, then fish 'n chips is exercise to some folk.

That's interesting: the senior Tory politicians pointedly avoided commenting on this in parliament when Nicola Sturgeon apologized and they got some credit for it.  They just lost that credit by going the sneaky 'anonymous spokesperson' route.    The nice thing about being anonymous is nobody can find photos of all the times you broke the rules.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55480761

Sounds like we might be getting further restrictions today, but on the face of it it sounds like an extension of the same old same old (Tier 4 creeping further out of London towards the North, some possible hardening of T4 in current areas) rather than a new national lockdown/T4 change.

Matt Hancock was interviewed on LBC at about 8 this morning, and explicitly said (to my great surprise, as that's an almighty leak with a fair bit of disrespect to Parliament who are meant to hear first) there would be no "tier 5", it was all about expansion of tier 4, which may include areas currently in 2 as well.

He also said he wouldn't be announcing anything with regard to schools and that the Education Secretary would do that in due course.

It's just a matter of when an irresistible force overcomes a political claim of being an immovable object. Events will just keep overtaking these tory backbenchers.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/30/major-incident-declared-in-...

Sadly the covid evidence probably won't be terrifying enough in Parliament today so more need to die and suffer for these egos.

 Viral load hitting the headlines today.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/30/new-covid-variant-linked-to-h...

Leaks are never really leaks - they’re SPADS pre-briefing the media so the politicians aren’t the ones breaking the bad news.

Only a matter of time till it's nationwide... I haven't done a detailed comparison of T4 vs L1 but it seems the main difference is that educational settings remain open in T4 (subject to what Williamson might say). There might be some other, smaller, differences as well. Worth noting that L1 eased a little with time, eg after a few weeks household waste centres opened and these remain open in T4. Can't remember now but possibly DIY shops were initially closed in L1 as well. So in practice nationwide T3 is pretty similar to L1, with the exception of educational settings (which I imagine they will push back till mid Jan, only to push back further to Feb once it becomes clear that mid Jan isn't enough...).

Which most people don't have.  You could say that about anything - it's certainly socially responsible not to murder people, for example.

Wearing a mask in a shop is mandatory, but people still don't wear them.
Travel/Movement between certain areas is currently illegal, but people are still travelling into and out of those areas.
Not Covid, but using a mobile whilst driving is against the law, but people still use them.
The only reason why people are knowingly breaking the law is because they can get away with it and it has got nothing to do with people being 'confused' about the difference between guidance and law.

I think you've missed the point there.  Guidance is guidance, it informs my choices, it is intended to guide me.  Law is something I must follow, and breaking it is a bigger step than deciding guidance is not appropriate to my specific context.  If something must be followed, it needs to be law.  It isn't appropriate to have something you must do that is not legally required.

There are lists of exceptions for masks and it's not policed. It's not straightforward.

Rules vs guidance have confused quite a few intelligent people, not helped by the likes of Gove making shit up in TV interviews. The most important factors: hands, face, space, get lost in the Byzantine complexity. None of the travel legalities have been more than symbolically policed in England despite the government saying they would be policed.

As for speeding, use of mobiles,... etc many people don't believe in the law, some do get confused, getting away with it is just one of many factors. I was at a speed awareness course and more than half the people there got two or more speed limits wrong and only myself and an ex policeman got them all right.

This is the worst bit - even the Torygraph was reporting that in Lockdown 1 that the law was that you could only exercise for an hour - no it wasn't.  Gove should never have done that.  He should only have spoken for the official advice, and if he didn't know he should have referred people to it or said he would come back to them.

Most commonly misunderstood is the car vs. van difference.  I have never understood why these even exist, because when you're driving forwards along a road it makes absolutely no difference to the safety of a vehicle whether it has rear windows or not.  TBH, I'd make it 50 (single), 60 (dual), 70 (motorway or special road on which pedestrians/cyclists are prohibited) for all vehicles, with lorries and coaches just restricted additionally by way of their limiter.

It'd make sense to some extent if it was based on stability/high-sidedness, but it isn't, and that makes it just silly.

Bit of light relief but that does sound quite funny

Wrong again. There is nothing in the (English) legislation about travelling between tiers...

As I said on another thread, if you can find me anything in the English legislation concerning this, I'll bung a hundred quid to MR.

I thought some were covered under this governments use of so called Henry VIII clauses. If so that's still law, albeit not yet written  and scrutinised statute.

Or have the police got it wrong?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/20/police-to-stop-people-fleei...

I can’t see people really being all that worries unless A. They really think they’re going to catch the virus or B. They really think they’re going to be punished for breaking the rules eg a fine. 
 

its generally pretty relaxed here in Greece during their lockdown but some of the rules are fairly well enforced and if you’re caught breaking them it’s €300 on the spot. same fine for any offence; could be no mask in public, travelling being provinces, out with others that aren’t family, (or annoyingly) not carrying a bit of paper and ID saying ‘I’m out for shopping/exercise/etc). If people really thought they were going to get hit with something like this in the UK you can bet they’d think twice before driving to mount Snowdon for a Christmas jolly 

For a hundred quid you're going to gave to do better than a Guardian article. Especially as there's NO SUCH THING as unessential travel. Sorry to shout but it doesn't exist in the legislation!

What they've been doing is getting people on the "reason to be out of the home" thing I believe, probably using the same principles as lockdown 1, i.e. "if the exercise is shorter than the car journey to get there, then you aren't out of the house for exercise".

How about this:

The Guardian link is free to read it's not unique. In these articles the police say they can issue fines so it's a law. In the .gov info if 'must' is used it's generally law and if it's 'should' it's advice.

Just FYI, the police have no powers to 'fine' anybody for anything, ever. That can only be done by a court. 

Want to try again?

Sorry. I'm genuinely having trouble reading that. Can you expand it then post it? Or post a link I can expand?

Incidentally, just because a Guardian article says that the police say they can do something doesn't make it a law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please post the legislation*

I'm confident asking this because I know you can't...

Try clicking on it.

It's just the Tier 4 guidance page on gov.uk I think, the Travel section.

Also a Link to the relevant website:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tier-4-stay-at-home#travel

Except it isn't guidance as 'Must' is used as a prefix to some of the clauses.

Thank you. Didn't know that.

So, once again, guidance. Care to link to the actual legislation.

If it helps, it's here. I'm really making this easy for you...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/contents

Nope...they issue fines which you can pay or contest in court (at greater expense).

I'm sorry. Are you really that hard of reading? Do you see the word after www.gov.uk/ and before /tier-4...

I got a fine for talking on my phone while driving, there was no court involved though

That doesn't cover all the 'Henry VIII' decisions made 'to protect the population' and which do not need immediate parliamentary scrutiny. 

How wrong can you be in one day? You appear to be going for a record..

They can issue a FPN. That is NOT a fine. A fine can only be imposed by a court.

No you didn't. You got a fixed penalty notice. That is NOT a fine.

You MUST give me a gazillion pounds and instant access to your first born.

There. I've used the word MUST. That makes it a law...

That (that "must" means law not guidance) had always been my understanding as well.

But having looked at the Tier 4 regulations below [edit - above], and spoken to a friend who has done the same with more expertise, I can't see anything on there that restricts travel. You can't leave your home without reasonable excuse, one of which is to exercise and another of which is to visit an open outdoor space, but I couldn't see anything in the legislation which restricted how far from your home that reasonable excuse might carry you.

Can you? It's something of a puzzler. It seems unhelpful to take a helpful distinction in the more readable guidance notes and start messing about with it.

Rumour has it she used to work at Gilette.

An FPN is a fine for a minor offence by any reasonable definition. The courts do not process it if you chose to pay. You can chose to contest it in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_penalty_notice

That is my point exactly. I refuse to believe it's coincidence that the gap between guidance and legislation is so large.

Just because Michael Gove (other repulsive politicians are available) says something on question time does NOT make it law.

If the police (who I genuinely admire in these difficult times) start enforcing the words of a politician rather than the actual legislation then that is, literally, the definition of a police state...

Did you manage to read as far as the second paragraph?

You know, the bit where it says "A fixed penalty notice is not a fine..."

Not really, as Adam Kucharski of the LSHTM argued, a vaccine that is more infectious but less lethal is still worse because transmission scales exponentially, whereas lethality is just a scaling factor on top of those already infected.

It is not the lethality of COVID that has made it so dangerous, but its infectiousness (and hence the pressure it puts on the NHS).

Unless of course the virus was so weak as to never even require hospital treatment, of course.

That was what I meant.  The common cold is very transmissible (to the point where if I spend more than fleeting time with someone who has one, I can basically be guaranteed to catch it) but it hardly ever causes more than a day in bed, and mostly not even that.

Think a lot of it comes down to how deep you read into the legislation and how you interpret it. For example, it might not explicitly say you can't travel from a Tier 4 area to partake in certain activities. However, it does say that you can't participate in such activities in a Tier 3 area if you live in a Tier 4 area and surely, that effectively means you can't travel from Tier 4 to Tier 3 to do so? 
From the legislation linked (Click to expand):
 

That part basically means that if you live in a higher tier, you must (if you do legitimately go to another tier, e.g. for work purposes) behave as if the lower-tier place was actually in the higher tier.

That is, Tier 4 restrictions apply to anyone who is currently in a tier 4 area, but also to anyone who is normally resident in a tier 4 area regardless of where they are.

Unfortunately an awful lot of people are deciding that the guidance isn't appropriate to their specific context.

Indeed, which is why they could do with forgetting the idea of guidance entirely (other than for things that affect the individual only, i.e. shielding) and making it all law.

Do I sense a bit of backing down? 

There is NO interpretation in the legislation. That is why it's the legislation...

It not only doesn't 'explicitly' say you can't travel from a tier 4 are, it doesn't even mention it!

Agreed, as you say, if you travel from a tier four are to a tier three area you still must abide by tier four rules. Which means, for example, I can go to a tier 3 pub on my own whereas the ones in tier 4 are closed. The onus in that case is that the tier 4  pub must be closed not that I can't visit it. 

And if I should want to go for a walk, climb, cave, hopscotch even, in a tier 3 area there is nothing in law preventing me from doing so.

Is my hundred quid safe yet?

Couldn't agree more. BECAUSE IT'S F*CKING GUIDANCE!

I'm guided by the government to eat 5 fruit or vegetable portions a day or not to drink more that 4 units of alcohol a day. Sometimes I do. Sometimes (more often) I dont.

Not been arrested for that yet. Care to guess why?

It's a fine in common usage in English, in a strict legal definition it's not a court awarded fine. If you are upset with the usage maybe write to the named police in these articles, one of which I'm just quoting.

Some legal experts have argued all year the extent of 'Henry VIII' clauses are the sort of government misuse you would expect in a police state rather than a democracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/07/boris-johnson-covid-p...

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/06/09/jake-hinks-the-coronavirus-act-2...

Whilst I might, in general terms, agree with you, you were the one that posted a link stating it WASN'T a fine.

And, in specific, rather than general, terms, it isn't...

However, this bit I completely agree with you.

Do you think that the guidance to "stay at home" during a pandemic is comparable to that for eating a sensible number of fruit and vegetables?

Whether I do or not is immaterial.

The government clearly does because they made them both advice rather than law...

Is that why? Or is it more a matter of the logistical reality of rapidly bringing things into law compared to how quickly it is required to respond to changes in the spread of a rapidly evolving disease?

Well, they've managed to bring any amount of other things into law at very short order.

One more shouldn't have been that tricky for them.

"Schedule 3A – Tier 4 Restrictions

Tier 4 restrictions were introduced at 07:00 on 20 December 2020.

Part 1 – Restrictions on Movement

Paragraph 1 – Restrictions on leaving home

No person living in a Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living (including the garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenances of such premises) without a reasonable excuse (Paragraph 1). This does not apply to someone who is homeless (Paragraph 1(3))."

"Regulation 11 - Fixed Penalty Notices

An authorised person can issue a fixed penalty notice (FPN) to anyone the authorised person reasonably believes has:

committed an offence under these Regulations; and

is aged 18 or over.

If the FPN is paid within 28 days, no proceedings may be issued."

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/coronavirus-health-protection-coronav...

Christ on a bike. You're making this easy for me!

One: What is the word between legal- and /coronavirus in that web address?

Two: Where does it mention moving between tiers for (for example) exercise, visiting an outdoor place, etc., etc..

That is true, but it's also true that some things are easier to make into law than others. I wonder if it's less about the "seriousness" of the infraction and more a matter of the difficulty of making restrictions on things like "travel for exercise" law (though I assume they have solved this problem in other countries).

In any case, it should be possible, given the seriousness of the situation, to refrain from certain activities whether or not partaking in them would be illegal.

On the legal point this is cps advice on latest coronavirus regulations and the issueing of FPNs based on those regulations. 

Is your beef really as trivial as an FPN does not constitute an accusation of a crime heard in court?

On the second point if you live in Tier 4 and are crossing into a new tier in breach of the regulations you are in breach of the first paragraph of the Tier 4 regulations I posted above (ie. being outside of your house for a reason not given under the exemptions). They don't need to specify all the different ways you could be in breach.

Here’s one with a different web address although I’m not sure that a web address forms part of the legislation

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/3A

There is an awful lot of legislation and part of it is wrapped up in allowing local authorities to create and enforce rules (subject to guidance/weekly review etc).

I don’t have a dog in this fight and am not saying you are wrong, until we get some case law I guess no one will really know how the courts will interpret it.  

Jesus you sound like you’d be fun at a dinner party after a few beers!

Were your family secretly pleased Christmas was cancelled this year?  

I don't think that's true. None of the exemptions I saw had a distance requirement assigned to them i.e. those exemptions provide a reasonable excuse for you to be outside your home and that excuse doesn't in the law expire at the Tier boundary. 

This is my last post on this unless someone can come up with the actual legislation (hint: They can't).

The hundred quid is still on offer if you can show me that travelling across tiers, as alleged by above, is against the law.

In relation to Offwidth above, if you are crossing into a new tier in breach of the regulations about being outside your house without a reason ( Not a specific reason, there are no specific reasons, it is a non-exhaustive list), you are NOT breaching a regulation about travel between tiers. There aren't any. You are in breach of a regulation allowing you outside without a reason. Going outside to exercise, visit an outdoor space, even going for a motorbike ride if that is your thing are all reasons to leave your house. Once you are out there is NO reason legal reason not to cross tiers.

I know that's what you want the rules to be but, trust me, that's not what the rules say.

I've tried but I really can't be bothered to argue this any more. I'd assumed that the comprehension skills on here were higher but clearly not...

A clear case of play the man not the ball. I expected better from you.

For your information, I have no family. My parents both died several years ago and I have no siblings. But thanks for asking.

You must have missed the winky smiley thing at the end of my post.

To be fair at 49 I really shouldn’t use them but thought I’d try! 

No. I didn't.

Putting a 'smiley' at the end of something doesn't make it less hurtful or offensive.

It was supposed to be a tongue in cheek joke. No offense meant and I apologise if it caused any.

Thank you. To be honest, any other time of the year it would probably have washed straight over my head but, being alone at Christmas is normally pretty shit and for some reason this one has been even shitter than most.

For many people it's not the happy time that everyone seems to think it is...

Fair point mate. It has been a tougher time for some more than others that’s for sure. 
Can you set another million meter world record to take your mind off it? I’m still in awe of that! 

Never again! I'd do the Atlantic once more at the drop of a hat but, to paraphrase Steve Redgrave, anyone who sees me on a rowing machine again has permission to shoot me...

funny how the people up here in Cumbria from all of the tier 4 areas seem to be exempt!

R Cumbria had a feature this morning of a local hospitality business owner challenging people from tier 4 and reporting they said the law allowed them to be here.  No sense of moral or public responsibility at all

My post explicitly says:

"being outside of your house for a reason not given under the exemptions"

Talking about MRTs (your offer for the 'bet') I just read a post from the Coniston team asking people from tier 3 and 4 areas not to travel to the Lakes then go and need rescuing. There was a BBC report this morning from one of the other Lakes MRTs asking the same thing. Anyway that wasn't my point - the Coniston team post said people they have rescued have subsequently been fined by the police. Do you think that's not true? Or if it is true, on what basis will they have been fined as these rules/guidelines/requests/whatevs aren't legislation?

I’ve approached my company about funding me to enter the Talisker race in a couple of years. I’ve not heard back yet! 

In the discussion I saw, the suggestion was that they were most likely fining people for being in mixed household groups. Seems plausible, but it's no more than second hand speculation.

I did say I wouldn't come back to this (other than my back and forth with GirlyMonkey) but I will respond.

I haven't seen the post but as a point of law they will absolutely not have been fined by the police. That is not within the remit of any police officer or force. They will have been issued a Fixed Penalty Notice. A FPN is not a fine.

It may well be true that they have been issued. What is less clear is what they have been issued for. Travel between tiers is not legislated against and travel for exercise is definitively permitted without any say on distance.

My guess is that if these are contested there is no way they would ever reach court. If they did, I know a barrister who has offered to pro bono these cases as the tickets will have been issued unlawfully.

I don't necessarily blame the police for this. I do, however, blame parliament (not the government itself, all parties) for issues media sound bites that are nothing whatsoever to do with the actual legislation.

As I've said before, if the police start acting on the word of a government minister or civil servant rather than the actual rule of law then that, by any understanding, is the definition of a police state. 

Even though I think Oceanrower is taking legal pedantry to exceptional levels he does have a point that the cps regulations could easily be made much clearer. It's simple to clarify  if you live in Tier 4  you must not leave your area (or Tier 4)  or if you live in Tier 4 you must not stay overnight anywhere else (both with strict exceptions). Currently the English regulations are impossible to police except on blatant breaches like house parties.

Listening to the news right now Van Tan is an exemplar of clarity. Boris in contrast is all over the place, including saying returning schools are no risk (when the epidemiology shows they are a significant risk)!

I'm not sure you're quite following me.

I agree that it is an offense to be outside home without a reason listed in the exemptions.

However, one of those exemptions is to exercise. Another is to go to church. Another is, if an elite athlete, to train. Another is to look for somewhere live. Another is to work.

In none of them does it say "in the same tier as your house". Or "in your local area". Or anything of the kind. 

The guidance on gatherings specifically mentions what people living in a Tier 4 area can do as regards gatherings outside that area, which rather presupposes they can be there in the first place.

To be honest, if I did do it again, I wouldn't do an organised race. It does make it easier in that permits and so on are arranged for you and the publicity certainly helps with find raising but... but...

In my experience it sucks all the joy out of it. After a couple of days we were the leading boat and that just heaped on a whole load of pressure. It became a case of we HAD to row rather than we wanted to row.

If the opportunity came up again I'd do an independent crossing but wouldn't be interested in a race.

Also, I haven't looked for a while but what are the race fees now? 18 years ago it was 15 grand. That's a lot of money to put towards a boat and equipment...

He was, I thought, also a very unhappy man.

I am following you but I agree we are still probably talking at cross purposes. You are explicitly allowed to leave your Tier 4 house and cross Tier 4  boundaries for the exceptions in that list. Guidance says you should not do some of these things. Its a mess.

I have to say that the legislation as laid down is, for a legal document, astonishingly clear.

You may wish they had gone further but that's not clarity with the regulations. That's just the regulations not going as far as you want them to.

In which case I think we agree?

Yes it’s very expensive. The round Britain non stop one looks good and is much cheaper, also you can hire their boats! 

The last couple of days have been incredibly busy around Threlkeld and Whinlatter.

Top of Kirkstone Pass heaving with sledgers this afternoon, equally busy around Brotherswater. Must be lots of Tier twoers out for the day.

This is the post I saw https://www.facebook.com/176432572398040/posts/4831183686922882/ it actually says they were fined for traveling from a tier 3 part of Lancashire, but I guess it wasn't a lawyer writing the post.

No matter what the letter/spirit of the law now is the time for sustained personal responsibility.

or....

sucking it up until vaccine Valhalla will mean more of your loved are still around come Daffodil time.

Thanks for that.

Clearly not! It's hard to see where they could have got it more inaccurate!

I thought you couldn't resist a reply. The simple fact of the matter is plain and simple communication is vital when dealing with a pandemic and when the behaviour isn't working as it should, we need clear and simple law and appropriate application of that law. You seem to be the only person who thinks it's all clear.

Are you actually doing stuff where you might end up needing to challenge a FPN? I can't quite work out if you are suggesting that people shouldn't follow the "rules" that are not actually law, or whether you think people should follow the rules but are just pointing out, as a point of academic interest, that there is no legislative back up to the rules?

If Cumbria police have given FPNs to people rescued because they had come from a Tier 3 area, are the police acting illegally?

Vans are assumed to be bigger as well as being likely to carry loads, which makes them heavier and hence more dangerous. I think that's the reason for the lower speed limits. It's easier to just say that the rules are the same for all vans (including most minivans). Same for HGVs, except that they obviously are heavier. 

Many residential roads are 20 now. I stick the cruise control on 20 and rumble along. If it's a road where it's easy to overtake, inevitably someone will do so. May be some of these people don't realise I'm keeping to the speed limit but I suspect most do but just don't care. So I suspect you're right.

I haven't been bothered to check the latest rules but you may well be right. The real point though is that the situation now is so bad with this new strain on the rampage that the right thing to do is to curtail all travel and contact with non-household people, regardless of what the law might still allow you to do. That would be in line with the guidance - which is not mandatory but is eminently sensible. The point is that the short term situation now is much worse than at any other point in the pandemic. This is what I was arguing in my 'stop climbing' thread on Rocktalk. 

I hope there isn't a vaccine which is infections, lethal or both

A bit of both to be honest. I'm certainly following 'most' of the legislation like I follow 'most' of the driving laws. I try to stay within the limits but if I speed slightly I don't see it as the end of the world. What infuriates me is our incompetent government making up the laws as they go along. Clarity in the law should be paramount. How are you meant to stay on the right side at legality if it changes with every cabinet members speech. It's either legal or it's not. 

That depends. If they're being given FPN's just because they've come from a different area then, yes. They probably are acting illegally.

If they're being ticketed for another reason (e.g. too large a group) then probably not.

Too little information to comment I'm afraid.

I hope there is. It'll save an awful lot of time*...

*and vaccine.

This sounds like the arguments from back in spring all over again. The issue here is that it comes down to what constitutes a reasonable excuse. There might not be a regulation against travel between Tiers but if you're in T4 you need a reasonable excuse to leave your house. Taking exercise is generally a reasonable excuse. However would driving from say Birmingham to say the Lakes to walk up a hill for exercise still constitute a reasonable excuse? I suspect not. It fails the 'man on the street' test. However if you live in Kendal it may well be a reasonable excuse. If you live in Ambleside it's likely to be a reasonable excuse. You have to consider the overall context, not just the specific activity, and avoid falling into the trap of interpreting the rules too narrowly.

Which exercise is.

There isn't 

Agreed

Yes. There are restrictions on leaving your house. Exercise is one of the reasons. Once you've left there are NO restrictions on travel.

You suspect wrong...

No it absolutely doesn't. You've already passed the reasonableness test. Anything after that is nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation. Just your own personal morals.

You're taking a very narrow interpretation of 'reasonable excuse'. You can believe what you like but I suspect a court would disagree with you.

Actually, I'm taking a very wide interpretation of reasonable excuse.

And I'm absolutely certain the courts would agree with me. It is a given in our legal system that legislation which attempts to limit personal liberty must be interpreted strictly against those seeking to restrict personal liberty.

Legally, yes. 

Jk

You’re right, that’s a very wide interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable excuse. And a very narrow interpretation of the restrictions.

Anyway, you seem very certain of your position. Perhaps you are a lawyer with relevant experience. I wouldn’t be so sure myself.

As I say, the real point is that in the current situation it is sensible to go with the guidance rather than try to justify doing what you want based on the precise wording of the regulations. I don’t think anyone is a fan of these restrictions but needs must. 

There are relevant changes for people in living Tier 4 areas vs the situation in lockdown periods.

The law on traveling away from your home for residents of Tier 4 is the same as the most recent lockdown, but the guidance is significantly stricter. It doesn't even just say not to leave your tier 4 area, it says not to leave your village, town or part of a city. It's fairly obvious that excludes going to the crag for most people. Guidance like that never existed before.

The reason it could be important is in how the law is interpreted. Within the law, in order to be a "reasonable excuse" to be away from your home, your journey to take exercise or do recreation in an outdoor space also has to be "reasonably necessary". In the context of the tier 4 guidance, it seems far more likely to me now that a policeman (who in practice will be making the decision for you) or theoretically a court, would judge a 45 minute drive in to the peak to be unreasonable.

(In HSE law where I have knowledge, what is "reasonably practicable" in law is usually judged by the enforcement authority by looking for relevant good practice and any available relevant guidance. I don't have professional experience with any law using the term "reasonable" alone, but I expect it might well be approached in a similar way, albeit with a lower bar.)

None of the above affects someone living in a Tier 3 area from travelling to a Tier 4 area for exercise - there is nothing in the legislation to prevent that (because the legal bit all stems from the requirement to stay at home) although it is advised against in the guidance.

Finally, note that if the police stop you and they think your journey is not reasonably necessary, then they are likely to do a couple of things: (1) direct you to go home and (2) possibly, issue a fine. If you think they've got it wrong then you could challenge a fine in court, but you cannot refuse their direction to go home - that itself is defined as an offence in law, regardless of whether their original judgement about reasonableness was correct. Further, they can use reasonable force to make you return home.

Previously in November lockdown I felt the guidance on remaining local was sufficiently loose that the law would probably not be interpreted in a way that prevented you from going climbing an hour away if there weren't much nearer crags to you. Now, with the new Tier 4 guidance, I would probably take a different view. (Personally in Liverpool region I'm still in Tier 3, but will probably stick to Pex, a trip to the grit isn't worth the potential hassle and stress if I get stopped even though I wouldn't be breaking the law.)

The lock down travel guidelines is a curious one.  When lockdown was first announced, travel guidelines were as restrictive as current T4, but they got substantially diluted at the last minute for whatever reason.  During lock down, driving to the nearest MTB track in Thetford was within the guidelines,  now it definitely isn't. 

I agree with this analysis but it is simply too late.  The blurred message sent out in the period preceding Christmas has resulted in countless visitors from high tier areas and I would need pretty strong evidence that they did NOT cause the stratospheric rise in cases in Cumbria,  My wife was shopping on Christmas Eve and she reported that, as I had seen pretty well every time I went in, it was very very quiet in the centre.   Keswick on the other hand, as reported by one of her work colleagues who lives there, has been crazy all autumn and up to now.   From what I've seen it looks like case proven, the idiots travelling for COVID holidays from high tier areas have brought disaster with them

I'm not condemning people who may have come on day visits from Tier 2 etc but the people who seem to have come to holiday homes and guest houses and prolonged Christmas Campervan festivities from 3 and 4.   I've never seen an autumn/Christmas like it.

It seems meet for a public inquiry. 

The reason for the need to "stay local" in the present situation is because the distribution of COVID, most notably the variant, isn't even across the country.  In March it was much more evenly distributed, so people popping to the Lakes for a walk or whatever was much less of an issue.

First time round, they actually allowed day-trips of any length you wished before even non-essential shops were reopened.

"It is a given in our legal system that legislation which attempts to limit personal liberty must be interpreted strictly against those seeking to restrict personal liberty." 

Wtf?

Is he basically saying "the legislators must comply to the letter, be seen to comply to the letter to both law and guidance, and be penalised without leniency if they don't"?  If so I would agree - I still think Cummings should have been sacked publically and in disgrace the day his transgressions were discovered.

Hypocrisy isn't a very effective way of getting people on board with laws that are bad for them.

There's a very 'reasonable' argument for taking you on a personal guided tour of a busy covid ward - if the staff there could justify the time spent taken away from their actual job. I think you'd benefit from witnessing how their 'personal liberty' has been impacted.

It's so important yet our government forgot to make it clear in the legislation. Ask yourself why?...it certainly wont be SAGE and  leading government scientists that wanted such an unclear and confusing mess.

The government are trying to appear as best they can to be following the science within their reality of being dragged backwards by the shackles of their libertarian and popularist back benchers. 

The problem with setting something fixed, like a distance or local authority boundaries, is that the places people live, work and exercise aren't perfectly aligned to that.  Our boundaries are a mess, for example there are chunks of Milton Keynes that are in Northamptonshire and in Buckinghamshire.

Even in an emergency like this, strict liability legislation needs to be practical.

I think it's opaque gobbledegook that has little connection to reality (where the guilty powerful mostly escape and the innocent proles too often suffer) ironically from a poster complaining about a lack of government clarity.

It's easy: define a reasonable distance and police minor infractions lightly and major ones harshly. More importantly don't have tiers, they do the opposite of what is needed in this blinding obvious critical stage of a pandemic.

There are all sorts of exceptions to the legislation anyway for work and many other reasonable excuses. As a reminder the legal bit is about staying at home. The tier boundaries only define who is affected, not where you can go (even in the tier 4 guidance, as well as law - see my post above). There is no difference between walking 100 yards one way or 100 yards the other if you live next to a Tier boundary. This impression is given by poor reporting in the media.

You may not like what Oceanrower has been saying, but you should pay close attention because he/she obviously knows what they are talking about.  I have no doubt that his/her concern for the current state of the world is equal to yours.

Well done and Happy New Year Oceanrower - this has been an interesting and educational thread.

Yet in an idealised response to what we faced before xmas you would want clear rules (not guidance) that said do not leave the area where the new mutation is high (with improved clarity on exceptions). Also enough enforcement to get people likely to ignore the rules thinking twice about the consequences of running away on a holiday to another part of the UK where restrictions are less tight. For example I'd have liked to have seen people leaving London to Northumbrian holiday homes risk facing court imposed crimnal offences in Northumbria. Facing a potential criminal record is a very strong incentive for middle class covidiots to behave better.

Which of the two of you using this profile is posting this?

What is easy about policing that one ? Everyone seems to be up in arms when we ask the police, rather than the public, to go with guidelines. 

Personally I'd like there to be a few high profile prosecutions where the concept of reasonable excuse is properly tested in court.  Is disregarding clear guidelines reasonable ?

You're quite likely correct about his/her 'concerns' and he/she is obviously erudite enough to state an opinion clearly about points of this or that legal situation, or otherwise. I'd be up there on the metaphorical barricade with Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Oceanrower too, defending the assault on our liberty if only the covid virus would just listen to him/her and play by the rules too. Unfortunately, it just won't listen to reason - how absolutely unreasonable can a virus get? Yes, by all means have a Happy New Year but be realistic - this isn't a government hell bent on subverting democracy and oppressing the people through a virus (they're doing that via a raft of other measures). It's a health emergency.

Testing in court is too late. Clear rules and the threat of prosecution for egregious abuse is more than enough to prevent most urgent problems. As it is, the rich libertarian minded can just stick two fingers up to the rest of us. This creates a damaging situation, when public compliance is important, as it most certainly is in a pandemic. The terrible handling of Cummings' abuses on its own cost us hundreds of lives.

I was mortified in lockdown one when the Derbyshire police were castigated in the press for showing drone footage of dog walkers at Curbar. Those same papers have been damaging public confidence in necessary restrictions from the start. Our recent cult of individual freedoms in these papers only applies for the minority who can afford to reap the benefits.

We managed to get through several crises worse than this one without suspending the rule of law, believe it or not.

Once the rule of law is lost, history suggests that it is very expensive in terms of human lives to get it back.

Once you've coughed your last on a ventilator it's historically impossible to get your life back

This is the first pandemic we have faced in modern times but nothing like the first time liberties faced mass constraint (mainly in wars). Temporary public health neccesity takes precedence over minor infringement of personal liberty.

Just to be clear, are you advocating a police state and rule by political diktat for the duration of the coronavirus crisis?

Out of interest, when do you expect the crisis to end and how will we know it has ended?  For example, we still have polio floating around in various places. 

Absolutely not. Just a democracy must be able to adapt reasonably in law to a pandemic (or any other situation) that can throw up major unexpected risks for the state and all its citizens in a matter of weeks. 

So I answered your question... am I speaking to Rodney or son?

I'm starting to wonder if you have lost your mind.  You are not speaking to anyone.  You are typing anonymous messages in an anonymous chat forum on the internet.  This is a different medium to chatting in the pub for example and, granted, it does take a bit of getting used to.  The presence of individuals like Oceanrower is what makes UKC interesting, for me at least.  Anyway, Happy New Year to you too, whoever you are.

Back on the main thread, I agree that our law-making process does at times appear a bit cumbersome.  I'm not entirely clear what you are advocating in terms of reform.

The Police weren't being sensible either.  While people shouldn't have been driving from Manchester/Sheffield to Curbar, say, there was nothing wrong with going for a walk along Stanage if you live in Hathersage, or along Curbar if you live in Curbar, Calver, Froggatt or Baslow, that's really no different to going to your local park in London.

Pretty much all of the enforcement required could have been done by hanging round the car parks, doing ANPR checks on cars to see where they were registered, and asking people where they came from when they got back, then doling out the fines to anyone who said "Manchester", "Sheffield" or worse "London" or whose car was registered as being kept there.  But, oh no, they had to play with their toy, and it did serious damage to their reputation and wasn't even effective at enforcement.

My personal take on that is "when, by whatever means, it ceases to threaten the NHS".  Which I guess means when it ends up, by whatever means (be that a vaccine, treatment or it just mutating), to be either the same as or less dangerous than the annual winter flu.

Pretty much the whole point of closing down much of the economy is to ensure that the NHS can just about cope, because if it can't then people start dying of other entirely treatable things (e.g. I've had DVT and pulmonary embolism, which with treatment has been annoying but without treatment may well have killed me in fairly short order), and so the excess deaths rocket, and that leads to all sorts of bad things.

The rule of law hasn't been suspended.  Public health regulations are part of it.

I agree, but it hasn't been lost per-se.  Though I must admit I wasn't aware of quite how great an extent regulations could be used.

Jumping off on a tangent...

It's really interesting that flu is almost totally absent from hospitalisations this year.  I assume this is down to the Covid control measures being really effective against flu, and whilst the measures may be failing against the new strain of Covid, by relieving the NHS of its annual flu pressure, it is making the overall hospital situation much less bad than it could have been.

I saw little evidence of police abuses. In particular there was zero enforcement of dog walkers on Curbar. Just the opposite occured in some cases... parents made a massive legal and  political fuss that led to reduced  fines for dangerously irresponsible student house parties in Nottingham.

This government chose the worst of both aspects of the law. Writing unclear legislation using emergency powers when there was time for debate and a strong desire from the government scientists for better clarity. Boris has tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny more than all the other PMs in modern times put together.

It's more difficult now for ordinary UK citizens to access law than ever before in modern times. Also the legal system has never been in a worst state because of austerity and other measures. That the right wing press bang on about anti-lockdown individual liberties in such times is bloody shameful.

It's an abuse of the site for multiple people to use one profile. Neil Foster outed this account for that during the BMC motion of no confidence threads. A choice of being anonymous is protected by the site (even though I'm easily enough identified).

I'm fundamentally advocating this government should have better utilised the time it had for parliamentary scrutiny which might have produced better clearer law, such as is vital for effective action in a pandemic response, in great contrast to what it has done. The confusion in the law and guidance and blatant abuses by the likes of Cummings as a special advisor to the PM has costs lives and caused unnecessary economic damage.

Not entirely.  The economy would grind to a halt anyway if a large proportion of the work force are out ill.  Imagine all the staff at a local supermarket all of a sudden beingoff ill at the same time.  There is an objective to keep enough people fit enough to stay working.

You are being ridiculous.  I'm not sure why you are dragging Neil Foster into this discussion.  He did no such thing, not least because there is no evidence of the identity of the person posting as Neil_Foster.  This is an anonymous internet chat.  I could be Zaphod Beeblebrox for all you, or anyone not looking over my shoulder, knows.  I really am baffled by why you constantly seek to bring this issue up.  Take it up with UKC.  Perhaps you could volunteer to be UKC's police officer in this matter.

Driving there from Sheffield and driving there from Manchester are very different things.  The entire Froggatt/Curbar escarpment is within a few miles of the Sheffield city boundary.  Less than a 15 minute drive to Curbar Gap car park from a big chunk of Sheffield, Dronfield or much of Chesterfield, and those dog walkers were doing no harm whatsoever.  (Well, assuming they weren't hanging neatly bagged turds up in the trees or anything anyway.)

It was a shame the Derbyshire police blew so much credibility trying to 'Covid shame' people with their drone footage, without making the slightest attempt to communicate with the people they were seeking to shame directly.  (Surely the Old Bill's equivalent of seeing perceived dodgy top-roping practices at the crag, stealthily taking photos but saying nowt and then posting on here to complain about it later.)

ANPR malarky wouldn't have been much better imo.  If they'd wanted to change those peoples' behaviour perhaps they could have tried talking to them.  Hearts and minds, y'know?  Especially as they were trying to encourage people to follow 'advice' rather than enforce the law.  Police officers are generally supposed to have reasonable interpersonal skills aren't they?

I know Neil well as do various others he discussed the matter with. The profile with the same name as his clearly attaches to him (being a very well known climber). UKC are aware of the situation and it's up to them what they do with it.

Derbyshire police did speak to people as well as issuing the drone footage. They knew some of those using the carpark were not locals. Back then we didn't know that outdoor surface risks were as low as we do now nor that short proximity risks outdoors were negligable. 

https://www.questmedianetwork.co.uk/news/daily-coronavirus-updates/derbyshi...

The person who made the biggest fuss was Lord Sumption one of the UKs most prominent anti-lockdown critics:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/oct/27/covid-measures-will-be-seen-as-...

Right. Back for the evening shift...

But first, can you clear something up for me? I'm confused. Is it that you think gallum1 is using two accounts or two people are using gallum1's account or that gallum1 and I are the same person?

Not quite got the hang of what's going on here...

Good stats on this in Jersey - 4998 self-isolating contacts at peak resulting from ~850 live cases. Extrapolated to the UK you'll have about 2.8million people self-isolating at present :-O.

If I were you I would keep going with what you were doing so admirably further up this thread.

Offwidth has not quite understood how or why internet chat rooms are anonymous.

Thank you and a Happy New Year to you too.

And all on here whichever stance on this subject you take.

As I said. Back for the evening shift. Bring it on...

I think that's almost certainly true.  It is happening with colds as well - the last proper cold I had this year was in early March, whereas usually I will get 6 to 8 a year.

I don't think you understand how this forum works. This site has clear rules, including this one (and they do regrettably ban posters who take the piss):

"Be responsible for what gets posted under your name - Keep your profile log in safe."

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/guidelines.php#profiles

There are no family and friends profile services.

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/learn-and-develop/continuous-mortality-investi...

Presumably that's a part of what's driving the inversion in chart 3 of the mortality monitors in the link above - with covid deaths currently being above excess deaths (opposite to the picture in April where excess deaths were significantly above the Covid ones), implying lighter non-covid mortality than expected.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.  I'm pretty sure he wasn't posting on the thread(s) about it on here though.  Can't find the thread I'm thinking of now so I guess it was in the pub and it's hardly worth raking all that shite over again now.

It's often handy to link old threads it does show some interesting differences (and similarity) for regular posters.

Derbyshire Police

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/derbyshire_police_-_corona_advi...

Derbyshire police 2

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/derbyshire_police_-_corona_advi...

Oh and while we are at it ...gallam1 outed as being two people using the same profile.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/bobs_response-672258

I've listened to Sumption a lot over the past couple of years and while he's quite respectable in terms of legal knowledge I think he's off his rocker over the pandemic and civil liberties.

You seem to be desperate to re-hash the BMC discussion in this thread for some inexplicable reason.  Please provide your evidence that two people were using my profile.

I'm going to give you a clue here.  The only person who has ever posted anything under my account profile is me.  I have no way of proving my identity to anyone here and neither do you, so I suggest that you stop sucking the life out of what was actually an interesting discussion.  Perhaps you could start another thread to discuss what is really bothering you.

Bullshit. The evidence is all there in the linked thread, and it takes two to argue.

It's interesting how some people who get all het up about civil liberties don't like other people using their freedoms to point out uncomfortable truths. UKC threads go where those interested in posting want them to providing it stays within the site rules.

There is no evidence whatsoever in that thread.  Feel free to point to it here if you must.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to resort to swearing either, but I cannot say that I am surprised.  

In reply to geode:

Here you go  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

I see no need to add to what the contents of the linked thread clearly demonstrate. If you have a convincing alternative explanation that everyone overlooked and deals with the contradictions feel free to share it now (as you were asked at the time). In the meantime you are not making a particularly convincing demonstration of someone not wanting to distract from this thread contents 

These days 'bullshit' is regarded more as vulgar rather than swearing. The lies and misinformation in that thread that your profile were very much part of (irrespective of your identity) means you deserve at least such responses imho. Other UKC users can judge for themselves. I'd forgotten Leo's 'mad and bad' letter to the Vagabond club was also recorded in that thread for posterity, so thanks for goading me into looking for it. 

I've changed my mind on travel and climbing in light of the new strain, which is clearly a game changer at this point in time. It is also worth nothing that the travel guidance for T4 (which I'm in as of yesterday) is stricter than any of the previous guidance, as has been pointed out by someone above. Much as Oceanrower would like to focus on the detail of the regulations, we can't just ignore the guidance altogether (and the courts probably wouldn't either, if it came to that).

When the facts change, I change my mind. It doesn't seem to be that many other people have changed their mind. I suspect a few more people will in the coming weeks.

You're just being silly. Regular users generally know who Offwidth (Steve) is from his various posts. I've never met him in real life but I certainly know people who know him. The climbing world is quite small, especially in Sheffield!

If you're going to post controversial opinions, whether that's about the BMC or anything else, I think it's common courtesy to not be entirely anonymous. Use a pseudonym by all means but at least make it generally known who you are, one way or another. Complete anonymity just raises questions when people post controversial views. Of course you might need to be anonymous due to your job but I rather suspect you're happily retired (happy to be proved wrong).

If I told you that my name was e.g. Prince Charles, how would you set about either proving that I was not being truthful or confirming that I was? 

I've not climbed indoors since the March lockdown and only climbed outdoors in the summer between lockdowns away from any crowds or busy parking areas. Mostly at Wharncliffe.

I don't agree with everything you have said but respect people making their own choices providing they are within the law. I blame the government first on any lack of clarity leading to abuse of grey areas. The lack of clarity looks deliberate to me to placate backbenchers, and the right wing press.

Oceanrower seemed anti-lockdown from those March threads (as linked in the Derbyshire police threads) so I simply don't trust his views.

I know plenty of people who know 'both of you' well. Neither identity is a secret if someone follows the various links. As JR indicated in the linked BMC thread there is no additional need to break site rules by spelling it out.

Pretending to be Prince Charles on UKC would have be comparatively much less harmful than what was said from your profile.

In reply to geode:

Read that thread about Bobs reply that I linked and things become obvious (about halfway, from Oct 13th onwards, when gallam1 first posts, to save some time) . Its incredibly rare forum regulars get upset with anonymity and UKC protects it for good reasons. However its not OK for people make serious accusations from an anonymous profile. Normally UKC moderators would delete such posts but they chose to keep them for posterity presumably as it was soon clear what was going on and who was behind it.

In reply to geode:

I think it's highly unlikely SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating (ie transmitting) since before January in the UK or anywhere outside mainland China. Given many countries' R0 values are estimated to be somewhere around 3 to 4, and early doubling times to be about 4 or 5 days, it's nearly inconceivable that it could have bubbled quietly away for a few months without causing the scale of the outbreaks that we saw around the world in Feb/March. 

Figure 2 of that PHE report -- these are clearly lab-based testing (they can distinguish between flu A and B, a GP taking a look at you can't do that), so it is influenza, not something else.

The peak in Figure 3 looks like March/April 2020 -- covid wave 1 basically.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that SARS-COV-2 was circulating before January-ish given how infectious it seems to be, but there are a few odd stories suggesting otherwise, of which this is one example:

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27W1...

I'm sorry to disappoint you. It must be terrible only trusting people who agree with you. What a lot of people you must distrust...

However, as you are well aware, absolutely nothing I have posted recently have been about my 'views'. They have been about legislation. The legislation is not anyone's views. It is the law as laid down by our (however incompetent) parliament. In this case in the form of a Statutory Instrument. 

I've offered money to MR if you could prove me wrong. You didn't. I posted a link to the actual legislation itself and you still couldn't. Do you not think that, perhaps, it's time to admit you were wrong?

It's impossible to prove you right or wrong as it comes down to a judge's interpretation of the law and whether they feel traveling a reasonable distance to go walking is a "reasonable excuse" for being outside your home. 

One of us doesn't understand how the legislation is worded.

Leaving to go walking is a reasonable excuse. If you can find a limit on what you do once you've left I'd be delighted to see it. I'll up it to 200 quid if it motivates you...

Would you like me to post the link to the legislation again or will you look it up yourself?

I would agree the message has been somewhat muddled. However the latest guidance is pretty clear. Oceanrower is probably right that the actual legislation is not as strict as the guidance (I say probably as I haven’t reviewed it myself). However my point would be, and I guess you would agree, that focusing on the strict wording of the legislation is kind of missing the point in the present situation. There is the question of what might or might not be legal and then there is the question of what is the right thing to do. The debate about legal details is of academic interest but to my mind it is fairly clear what the right thing to do is in the present circumstances.

Of course some people are lucky in that they can go climbing or walking locally with household members and I don’t begrudge them that. However that’s a small proportion of the climbing population. I certainly don’t have that luxury, though at least I live by the canal and within easy walking distance of leafy suburbs, so it’s not that bad.

Bring on the vaccines and the summer! 

Hard to know if they are false positives though (test error, cross-immunity, sample contamination), as this type of research tends to look for any positive test outcome. I'll wait for the WHO report.

I understand that in lockdown 1 the approach they generally took was that if the walking was shorter than the driving, what you had done is gone for a drive, not gone for a walk, ergo non-essential.

That 'might' have been the view of some ill informed police or the BBC but I will absolutely guarantee you that would not have been the view of the courts.

Not least because there HAS NEVER BEEN any such thing as essential travel!!!!!

Sorry to shout but this is so bloody basic. Do people still not get it?

Really ? Not much point in having courts then.

You seem to be very sure of your view on what is a fairly complex topic (what does 'reasonable excuse' mean and to what extent does the overall context need to be considered). This suggests to me that you are not a lawyer with relevant experience, as I doubt that any lawyer would be anywhere as definitive. 

There are no 'magic words' these days. Reasonable excuse means exactly what is says. An excuse that is reasonable...

Which is inherently subjective.

I think it is very likely from the scientific evidence that some form of C19 was in Turin before January. Sadly no one got to characterise it. It could have been a harmless mutation or we could have got lucky. We will never know. Information from the early days of the outbreak in China is still murky (and a citizen journalist who exposed the mess in Wuhan was recently jailed... arguably a crime against humanity).

The subsequent problem with that Italian evidence was it was misused by the likes of Prof Gupta to support dangerous fairy stories that the virus was nothing like as lethal as it was being painted, had been around a long time and herd immunity was close. Even as she first presented these ideas they failed to match the actual data on the virus (her IFR was impossible given NY deaths). By now her herd immunity ideas are very obviously bullshit. 

I trust people who look at the science and make sensible points based on that. On those Derbyshire police threads I linked you are a bloke on the internet saying shit that contradicts that science. Opinions are harmless when they apply to TV shows but unscientific positions on a virus as dangerous as C19 needed challenging. I don't trust you because you were spreading misinformation either because you are an idiot or much more likely from your posts sharing the dangerous libertarian linked political agenda about C19 all too common back then.

You haven't said anything of much use about law in this thread, you are making statements that by the way you define them are hard to make determinations. The actual law will be tested at some point, I'm sure, but we were in agreement from the beginning that the law was written 'wooly' (I think deliberately so). I don''t see all the police actions as being overturned and most changes in police positions seemed to have come from political, not legal, pressure.  Parliament were bypassed in much of this, the legal ambiguity is the fault of government.

I heard last night from a relative that a lawyer one degree further separated who is involved in legislation told him that these absurdly drafted powerpoint style regulations are actually being issued by minister's dictat as I suspected.

They are being written by PHE (I know someone who was involved in writing them earlier on).  They are indeed issued by "diktat" as the relevant Public Health Acts do actually allow for.  (They are mostly not issued under the Coronavirus Act but under older Public Health Acts).

The rules are regulations which are issued by the government but have to be confirmed by parliament within 28 days.