UKC

...by Derbyshire police, for according to https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/police-hand-out-covid-fine... traveling long distances to climb at Stanage. The story says they became argumentative, saying they weren't doing anything wrong traveling to exercise.

It says the police will be out at popular spots in the Peak to dissuade people from breaking covid regulations. Not sure how that's working - I cycled this afternoon and there were loads of cars parked at all the normal spots for walkers, climbers and cyclists.

200 miles each way for a days climbing seems reasonable ? 

This might be part of a national drive.  Apparently cycling groups were targeted in a local 'destination' village (most beautiful in Essex) over the weekend.

Good to remind people we are still in lockdown, I reckon.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m sure that I read that every single fine that has been challenged in court has been overturned? Indeed, the police themselves have backtracked on how many occasions, following a public shaming? The two ladies who drove 5 miles for a walk with their coffee-cum-picnic, for example..

I’ve been at the Stanage parking and had two officers on motorbikes ride right past myself and partner. Caught them up taking selfies in the sunshine at High Neb! This was back in the good old ‘tier’ system days though.

Appen as mebee

Whether the fines withstand legal scrutiny is moot point. The reminder issued through the publicity is a good message. Just because the sun is shining/you have had covid/you are vaccinated/the schools are back does not mean everything returns to normal. We have a long way to go yet. 

I was out at Froggatt over the weekend - it was heaving.  Loads of groups of 4 upwards, I counted a group of 10 older teenagers, and lots if University groups out.  I got the very strong impression that folk in general have now given up on any lockdown.  It's a bit of a shame really, I feel a bit of a noddy still sticking with rules/laws when so many around me are ignoring them so blatantly. 

If the Police felt like doing a quick patrol in the honeypot areas, they could have a field day.  But they're not.  There is no enforcement of any type going on anywhere that I'm seeing.  Not sure what that tells me really.

On the contrary, the police have lost a lot of public respect that will be hard to recover from once this is over. Handing out unlawful fines does them no favours what so ever.

Probably that the police simply don't have the manpower to be out in such vast numbers. And that even if they did, it would make for terrible public relations and they largely still believe in the important principle of policing by consent.

So nabbing a few particularly egregious examples and making a noise about it in the media, in the hope that other people think twice, is probably their best option.

Good. Seems an appropriate response to me. The more interesting case is actually the two who were fined for driving from Sheffield to Longstone Edge nr Buxton. There are a lot more people going that far than there are doing 200 miles. Personally I feel then police action is still appropriate at the moment. Unfortunately though the reality is as Luke90 says.

It would seem to me that Covid transfer is not a function of distance travelled if travelling in private transport with only those in your support bubble. Covid infection is related to person to person interaction. It would seem reasonable to me that police issue fines to those who break the rules which result in unnecessary person to  person to contact. Travelling 1 mile or 200 miles by oneself in a car makes no difference to the covid infection risk. (I assume the breakdown risk is so small it can be ignored.) 

"So nabbing a few particularly egregious examples"... of people not breaking the law?

Where is Oceanrower when you need him!

Reading between the lines... The Longstone Edge Four, probably travelled out in the same car, thus obviously breaking regulations, and having a reasonable risk of transmitting to each other.

This seems to the case in most reported cases of fining in the countryside - the police target groups of more than 2 in a car. The story is often portrayed about purpose or distance of travel, but four in a car gives a clear violation for the fine. 

I'm surprised the Stanage Two got done. I'd expect it to be within the law, although I don't condone it, or see it to be reasonable. 

ACAB 

I think we are on the slippery slope to "travel as you please".

The positive news on vaccines, lots of talk of summer holidays, festivals selling out etc. Many people are definitely not in the total lockdown frame of mind and it's only going to accelerate.

A number of fines have been issued by Cumbria police in the last week, probably quite easy to pick people up breaching the rules as they come off the M6. I've noticed a marked increase in campervans in the lakes over the last two weeks and more obvious looking tourists (mainly middle aged couples) in the local supermarket. 

The police are going to have to be a lot more vocal in issuing penalties otherwise by April it'll be out of hand. 

Of course. I don't like the travel restrictions. I got really pissed off with Cumbria police and other organisations (MR) for telling people to stay away at the end of lockdown 1. I was pretty pissed off about the Welsh approach of keeping us out in the autumn too. Fortunately on that occasion (November) the rules in England were far more sensible.  But the police shouldn't be enforcing what you or I think is the law, they should be enforcing it as it is. My opinion is that with the legislation and accompanying guidance that is made available by Government, all these examples fall outside what is a "reasonable excuse" for being outside one's home under the law, and therefore it's an appropriate response to give them a fine. This is purely from my reading of the legislation and the guidance, it has nothing to do with what I think they should be were I making them.

Do you have a link for that uniform successful challenges in court position? The court system is so clogged currently that some serious crimnal cases are waiting for up to two years. I'm not aware of any successful challenges to egregious distances under the guidelines (a reasonable excuse test in law that Sid raises).

I agree the law doesn't specify distance but the police can issue defendable fines for behaviour arising from asking individuals to follow government guidelines. We still don't know the peppermintteagate incident from the police side...other people who drove the same distance the same day were talked to and yet drove away with no FPN. Their drive was reported to be various distances up to 8 miles, and certainly via Starbucks. I agree an FPN for a walk with a drink that was was legal and arguably within the guidelines of the time would have been wrong. I certainly don't like that there are massive incentives to accept an FPN and pay (a risk in a court defense of a criminal conviction).

The law does specify no overnight stays, and no exercise in groups outside a household.

The mess over how far we can travel is deliberate pandering to the libertarian backbench MPs and press commentators and leaves the public and the police in difficult positions... the government chose to not define distance in law, unlike Wales and Scotland.

Travelling long distances, however you define them is how the more vaccine resistant variants have spread. It is call the south Africa variant because that is where it came from, likewise Kent etc.

What concerns me greatly is that the Police have been issuing fines for being far from home when this is not expressed in the relevant legislation.

It almost strikes me that Bozza etc have made the law one thing, but then asked Police to enforce something different, because I don't see why they would do that off their own backs.  That is VERY concerning to me; the Police should never be tasked with enforcing anything that isn't law.

I suspect this one was issued on the basis of "if a Police officer tells you to go home and you don't then it's an offence" - that is a dangerous, dangerous law.

The correct way to do it would have been to express clear and simple travel limits in law, e.g. a 5 mile radius, a 10 mile radius etc - as every other country with any sense has done it.

It doesn't.  Exercise with one person from one other household is permitted.

I would agree with that.  There should have been an absolute distance defined clearly in law.  We have ended up in a highly dangerous position where it appears the Police have been asked to enforce something that isn't law; that is what happens in totalitarian regimes and should not happen in a Western democracy; the law should have been fit for purpose in the first place.

To be pedantic, it's referred to as the Kent variant because that's where it was first discovered. I think it's regarded as quite likely that it actually originated elsewhere. Though that doesn't detract from your main point about travel at all.

Yet the government faced significant pressure after the first wave  and chose not to define distance in the rules such that it would be law. Worse, the home secretary attacked her government law in saying people should be fined for breaching guideance.

I don't overly see, to be honest, why we shouldn't have done what the Welsh did - no motorised transport for exercise unless you have a disability or a clear safety issue (e.g. living on a pavementless 60mph road) that prevents exercising from home, which doesn't apply to 99%+ of people.

Agreed. Some may have gotten the impression that I dislike the Police, or consider the rules nonsense etc.. when it actually boils down to the piss poor government and their response to the pandemic. If you’re going to set rules, then set rules.. not wishy washy guidance that leaves both the public and those who have to enforce it at loggerheads over interpretation.

I climbed both days this weekend, both a few minutes from home, both times at places guaranteed to be quiet. Except it wasn't, around a dozen people both days at two small venues. I think people are just fit to burst and I play my part in that, probably should have moved on sooner. But it was nice to have a bit of sanity for a couple of hours and actually be in company with like minded folk. Risk-wise I'm very relaxed, guidance wise less so.

Four wasn't it?  (As above, I too would guess it was a group of four sharing a car.)

I think I would take issue with "near Buxton" too.  If it's near Buxton, it's near Sheffield too (the posh end of Sheffield anyway).

I completely agree though that this seems appropriate.  It's a shame the Derbyshire force put such a dent in their credibility with their antics and subsequent embarrassing public climbdown at the beginning of the year, it'll not be helping them now.

I think you are right about travelling as a 4 and most likely right about the travelling distance.

A different sport's governing body had a legal team go through the new regulations from 8th March onwards and issued the following statement on Saturday:

Policing guidance issued to police officers states:

"Government guidance is not enforceable. Do not issue fines to people not adhering to government guidance"

Following with "There is no requirement to stay local in the local regulations, but that would appear to very much in the spirit of the law"

I doubt the fines for the people travelling a long distance will stand up in court.

On a side note, it's very interesting comparing a few sports i'm involved with, climbers on this climbing forum seem by far the most reluctant to allow people to get out and practice their sport. I wonder if its a large proportion can walk to crags so are content to take a hard line or whether climbers just have high morals. From what ive seen crags are busy so maybe its just on here. Transmission outside has shown to be low to non-existent so i'm sure the packed crags are actually non-issues, and as long as people are sensible, I would say climbers usually are, I don't really see how driving a long distance adds any significant risk, especially if your not meeting people there. 

The governments wishy-washy "adhere to the guidelines" followed by "naughty boy, didn't adhere to the advice" approach has left us clawing at each others throats.

And how could it not? How could I not feel a degree of resentment for those choosing to spur the guidelines whilst I am leaving my city front door for what feels like the thousandth time in a row, to walk or run the same streets? Of course I dream of the Peak District crags and moorland, but greater good it is, and consequently concrete for me. So it'll come as no surprise that I'm in favour of fines being handed out.

And, I suppose, how could those choosing to interpret the guideline liberally see those preaching close adherence to guidance as anything other than overbearing morality do-gooders?

For the record, I don't see much transmission risk in outdoor exercise. But I also don't see unreasonable risk in driving down the motorway at 100mph, but don't do that either.

Not that it matters much now, before long most of the population will be vaccinated. The bitter taste of division will stay much longer, I think.

The most farcical part of all this is the police forces issuing fines for the majority of these “breaking guidance” offences are actually themselves breaking guidance in doing so. 

You're wrong Neil (but it's not obvious to many the way the rules are explained) . One person from one household is allowed to exercise with one person from another. A group can only excercise together from the same household.

According to our local paper, Sussex Police have been very active over the recent sunny weekend issuing 258 fines on what they describe as "scenic drivers" out across the county to "see the sea" including a motorcyclist who rode from Ashford to Rye to take photos. and a couple from Crawley who drove to Beachy Head to exercise. They have reiterated the "stay local" message. So anyone if anyone fancies a trip to the seaside beware!

This is badly reported.

All charges under the Coronavirus Act have been overturned. I think there have been around 2-300 of them across the UK and, looking at the law I'm not quite sure why they will have been issued, other than by mistake (referring to wrong legislation).

The fines which everyone is aware of are almost exclusively issued under the Health Protection (Coronavirus restrictions) regulations and they are being paid and/or prosecuted.

I know a couple of people who have been fined in East Sussex, for travelling short distances from one village to the next, along the coast. Ashford to Rye is about a 25 minute trip at most, along country roads. East Sussex police seem to be quite enthusiastic with handing out fines. Just over the border in Kent you can party all you want, without a care in the world.

No, I'm not wrong, that is exactly what I said.  It applied in this case, because there were two of them ("a pair of men").

Given that that is the eventual outcome (obviously), I think letting things slip slightly towards each unlocking "step" is not at all out of kilter with what is aiming to be achieved.

That actually has a considerable advantage, because if that slip causes cases to start running out of control, you can then re-tighten without changing the law (just tighten enforcement) and delay the next step.

A couple of people have mentioned how travelling in a car, to a crag to climb is relatively low risk, whether 2 minutes or 20 minutes away.

That’s generally true but more people travelling just a bit further, especially to honeypots, sends a signal to everyone else that it’s fine (socially acceptable) to do what you like.  That creates a snowboard effect.

One (rather dangerous) aspect of this legislation is that if the Police tell you to go home because they think you're taking the mick and you don't, then that makes you liable for a fine even if the original act didn't.

Given that the article mentions them having an attitude, it seems that this is probably what happened to the "Stanage Two".

The Police of course tend to apply this "attitude test" anyway, e.g. by checking your car for minor issues if you're a bit mouthy when they stop you.  However, making a specific offence of disrespecting a Police officer, which is what this aspect of the legislation basically is, is outrageous.

The law should be clear and consistently enforced across the country, not based on coppers' personal opinions.  There is a very good reason we generally separate legislators, policing and judiciary - this specific bit of the legislation breaks the first separation.

I agree that as things stand driving from London to Stanage should be illegal.  However, this should be through something clear in the law - either by placing a clearly defined and unambiguous limit on the distance you can be from home for exercise, or by disallowing the use of motorised transport for that purpose with only very limited and again clearly defined exceptions e.g. those with disabilities who need e.g. a suitable wheelchair-accessible area for exercise, which a residential street with cars parked on the pavement up both sides may not be, for example.

Yeah, it's basically the "Snowdon issue".  I'd quite happily drive to somewhere obscure and go wild camping on my own, but if that's allowed, then half of London decamping to Llanberis also is, and that would, as things stand, be a problem.

TBH I think the Welsh got it right for this stage of things - exercise from your front door unless you've got a really good reason, e.g. a disability.

That's really interesting - can you explain a bit more about the difference? I thought I had read quite a lot on this issue over the last year but was completely aware that people were being fined on the basis of two different bits of legislation! Shows what I know!

I did try digging a little more into this story because I'm pretty certain that the "Derby Telegraph" just got this off the Bakewell SNT's Facebook page. In the lengthy comment thread under the story an almost throwaway comment from the officer posting as Bakewell SNT suggested the climbers were camping or planning on camping. I do wonder if that's what they actually got fined for, but the Facebook post just focused on them driving a long way to get there. It does seem that in lots of cases where people are getting told off for breaking the guidelines they are actually getting fined for traffic offences or similar.

*Derby people - is this an actual genuine longstanding local paper now just reduced like so many to horrible stupid ad filled internet pieces that often feel quite click-bait-y 'churnalism' or is just an ad filled website doing aggregation instead of journalism?

Surely this is also a reasonable argument for the law and the guidance and the enforcement to all focus on the stuff that is actually high risk - generally, being with other people in enclosed spaces - so the response to people in parks or beauty spots is "look at these people staying safe by being outdoors in small groups, isn't it great that we're all doing our bit" and not "look at all these people ignoring the guidance, makes you wonder why you bother doesn't it" - in response to which some people might wonder why they do bother, actually and whether they shouldn't just go and see granny this weekend...

I'm aware a pair can exercise. I wasn't aware you define a pair as a group.

The article mentions a pair of climbers, it was that that I was referring to.

It's depressing that being outdoors in public more, reasonably local, isn't encouraged properly given we know it's very low risk. Government messages are so mixed that it's inevitable people sometimes have the wrong focus... you get the impression if you stop to chat to someone the home secretary might even jump out from behind a bush with a police riot squad and arrest you, given her face and body language when discussing people travelling for exercise. It's her ministry that failed to ensure a distance is defined in law.

I was at Stanage on Saturday; very quiet/ few folk climbing (stacks of walkers along the top mind). 

Longstone Edge - maybe the four lads were fined for their lack of taste?

I don't think of two people as a 'group'...

I suspect the number of climbers who can walk to crags is relatively low, and the majority of us aren't so lucky.

No, we are still in a national lockdown. The rules are stay at home unless you absolutely have to leave. It's not "visit which national park you fancy". I'm sure most of us would love to "slip slightly to { insert mountain area of choice }" but we don't, because it's against the law.

Sending out very mixed messages. Variations in enforcement have caused enough confusion and resentment, more isn't going to help.

And we still have ~5k new cases/day. And ~10k people still in hospital. For all the good news, we are still far from 'in the clear'. The more we all adhere to the lockdown measures, the shorter the lockdown will be.

Let's be patient for just a bit longer; we really don't want another wave, and the necessary lockdown that will go with it.

I'm all in favour of sticking to the rules, but to be honest if we have another wave and another lockdown then I'm going to blame the bosses who've kept huge numbers of people coming to work in factories, call centres, offices, shops, estate agents, opticians and so on while only making token nods to infection control, and the government who've allowed and encouraged them do it. Not people who drove ten miles to walk round a reservoir on their own, or sat down on a park bench, or even the tiny tiny number who've driven hundreds of miles to go climbing.

Just in case anyone isn't aware from today, 2 people meeting for any outdoor recreation is now specifically listed as an exception in the legislation.    So you can go to the beach, walk in the lakes, climb at stanage, whatever.

The stay at home is effectively finished, whether people like it or not.

The Health Protection Regs cover most of the stuff that is in the news, masks, leaving home address, tiers etc :

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/contents/made

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

The Coronavirus Act is much bigger and covers lots of stuff - I'm not too sure what charges are likely to have been issued under it to be honest - maybe related to Sch 22 about gatherings 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents/enacted

Here's some data about prosecutions. I think this is just the ones that have ended up at court:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/januarys-coronavirus-review-findings

It certainly is for those that end up on ventilators.

I find it rather telling that the one person (you) that has contributed with a bit of knowledge regarding the actual law gets largely ignored in this thread.....

Off Duty has been thanked many times in the past on these threads. He is not ignored here.

Exactly right.

The classic sustainability problem. Almost anything is fine when one only person does it but most things turn into an utter disaster when tens of millions do it!

The current "stay local" guidance with no objective distance or time limits is a complete cop out by the Government, but unfortunately it's still necessary because as soon as it is lifted every tourist honeypot will be utterly rammed resulting in an unavoidable increase in social interactions whether unintentionally or not.  It's human nature, once people start travelling widely for leisure they are inevitably going to start meeting with friends and family they otherwise would not see. Interactions will then gradually evolve from individual socially distanced outdoor conversations towards larger and larger groups and closer and closer interactions...

Israel apart, the UK is currently the best positioned country in the world to exit the pandemic in an orderly and relatively rapid way. If "staying local" for another month is required to ensure that trajectory is definitely maintained, I can probably live with that...

And unbelievable amounts of rubbish, especially Bamford edge.

THIS IS INCORRECT!

The current (8 March) guidance is still stay local for your exercise. Local is defined as village, town or part of city where you live.

Apologies for the bold caps but I’m concerned that a casual reading of your post might encourage people to travel. We are not out of the woods yet. A comparison of current data with that at the beginning of Sept is sobering.

To further make the point, stay at home is scheduled to end on the 29th of March

"The ‘stay at home’ rule will end on 29 March but many restrictions will remain in place." taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-spring-2021/co...

After all this talk of rising amount of people at crags and country venues, I thought I'd add my experience living in East London right now... 

Basically in my area of town Lockdown is over.  I'd say about half the shops on the high street are open, if not more, as they generally sell food or hardware, amongst other things (East Ham is the home of multi-service stores), there are market stalls open down the high street and even a busker ferchrissakes.  Loads of people on the streets, takeaways full of people....

Parks are full of people playing large games of football, basketball etc.... I've had to go in to central London for work several times last week and the tube has been packed, with a good 10%-20% not even wearing masks.

I'm horrified at the amount of rule breaking I see, but after a year of mixed messaging, unclear guidelines and government failure I'm hardly surprised.  At one point last year we had the highest Covid death rate in the country, still nobody seems to care.  

Central London is dead by the way.  Very little open, very few people around.

"The fines which everyone is aware of are almost exclusively issued under the Health Protection (Coronavirus restrictions) regulations and they are being paid and/or prosecuted."

Of course they are, there is no right of appeal against the fixed penalty notices - there can be no other outcome other than to pay or wait for your day in court (unless you can sufficiently embarrass the police in the newspapers into admitting they have made a mistake).

I'm not wrong, have you read the legislation.  Quote below is today's addition to the exceptions for which you are explicitly allowed to leave your home:

"To visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation—

(i)alone,

(ii)with—

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

(bb)where open air recreation 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)with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household, or their linked childcare household,"

The full HPA is here.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/contents

You may or may not like it, but don't try and mislead people.

They are the Regulations for the tier system.
Do they apply to the current (as of yesterday) full lockdown situation?

Lockdown is every part of the country in Tier 4.  There is no seperate 'lockdown' law.

Outdoor exercise with one other person has been allowed for a while (para 2.(1).c.iii)

The difference announced today is the addition of the same exception, except for replacing exercise with recreation.

I don't see any change to the geographic scope of those exemptions.

OK, I'll take your word for it.
I'm going to burn in hell anyway, bought a stationary engine off ebay at the end of January, which I drove a 500 mile Manchester to Devon round trip to pick it up.  Then I did it again four weeks later.

As Darron says above “the guidance for [recreation] is to stay local..”

Police officers have been reminded that

”government guidance is not enforceable” 

Whether you stick to guidance is your own choice, based on your own conscience.

That was my point: there has been no change to the geographic scope from 'local'. The difference is you can have a coffee with someone now, not just go for a run.

Sounds confusing. Is this a ghost station thing?

Basically, they've put back the recreation clause that was removed on 6th January.  

Yup. Just like most police fixed penalty notices.  

You think it's wrong - go to court.

Buxton is about 30 miles from Sheffield, and Longstone Edge about 18. I would have called Longstone Edge local to Sheffield at a stretch, but Buxton is not really 'near' Sheffield, relatively speaking.

I guess the mitigating factor was 4 in a car, not the distance.

Well done. Do you want a medal?

That would be the incriminating factor, not the mitigating factor, surely?

To clarify, the default position is that you remain at home.

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.

The guidance remains that you should stay local. The guidance on it's own isn't enforceable.

As I've repeatedly said - you can't expect policing and legislation to solve a public health emergency. 

At some point social responsibility should kick in.  And to be fair, it largely has, despite a vociferous minority.

Obviously, as seems to be the general consensus, screw everyone else, as long as I can do what I want. After all, I am more important, and taking part in my hobby at my convenience and my choice of venue far outweighs any poxy "guidance" for the hoi polloi.  As long as we encourage that attitude this should all be over soon...

I took a calculated risk, if you want to think of it that way.  I've been out of Greater Manchester once since this kicked off to see my mother in Yorkshire.  I'm a Social distancing expert!
When I see people flying around the world, endless discussions about whether I should go climbing blah blah blah ...
edit: so I thought "Fuck it, I'm going."
Life has to go on, to some extent, otherwise the economy would've gone through the floor.  I filled up at my local Tesco/Esso, which I've been in and out of over a 100 times over the last year, drove along a quiet motorway, met a bloke outside, then came home.  Encountered ONE person.  Could've got a courier, but that would've introduced a third person into the equation.

Don't worry yourself, Spring's on it's way, you can get your drones dusted down, batteries charged, and out flying to spy on on people minding their own business.

I also think there is social responsibility in pointing out the the legislation has included both exercise and recreation as a reasonable excuse to leave your home. 
 

I doubt it.  People are either disposed to support the police in general and in their efforts to 'enforce' public safety or they are anti police in general.  I'd be surprised if anything has changed.

And posted in on social media for....?

Hence the problem. I'm not sure I'm.in favour of the drones but characterising the behaviour in question as nothing more than "minding their own business".... 

Or you could be even more socially responsible and link to the actual guidance.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home#sports-and-physi...

What do you think is the percentage of your average UKC lard arse qualifies as an 'Elite' sports persons?!

I feel like the problem with this is, as always, I don't really trust the police to interpret the law, and I don't think they should be required to anyway. The police also typically come down on the more heavy handed side, the Derbyshire police especially so.

I expect these will be overturned and apologies issued, but the intent is probably for the initial news story to dissuade travel. Which essentially is tantamount to the police trying to intimidate people, and not on IMO. And pretty standard for the force in question in the last twelve months.

The legislation (as opposed to the guidance), i.e. the enforceable bit, makes no reference to geographical scope (other than within England only).

The only basis for enforcement of being a bit far from home seems to be the argument that if you've gone for a 4 hour drive for a half an hour of walking, then your primary purpose wasn't exercise (allowed), it was going for a drive (not allowed).  Well, that and the "disrespecting a Police officer" nonsense.

Going for a drive also isn't "outdoor recreation" so that hasn't changed.

Nowt to do with the Stanage two or the Longstone four but...

I'm really losing my shit with the people who decide that masks are too good for them.  Their faces are so beautiful they deserve to be seen.

I'm talking about you parents in the playground.  I know the law seems nonsensical when we are picking up our kids who have been playing together all day unmasked, and that there is probably about 0% chance of transmission outdoors but FFS everyone else is doing it just in case, can't you just not be so F'ing special and wear a F'ing mask like the rest of us?

Or the youngsters in the supermarket for whom not wearing a mask is sticking two fingers up at 'the system'?  Just do it you dumb w*ankers.  ARGHHHHH!

That feels better now.

In a time of potential national crisis with clear rules in place for public safety, you think this is heavy handed policing ? Really ?  It might be worth looking at the actions of police around the world in enforcing much more stringent lock downs than ours.

If ‘clear rules’ were in place, this thread wouldn’t exist.

In response to your reply to my respect post, I am one who has. I have no problem with any individual officer, and will continue to be kind and courteous to my fellow humans whenever I meet one however as an institution they’re in need of a dire rethink.

Thing I always like about Buxton is that you can easily walk out to the moors and dales in pretty well any direction. To get out to Longstone Edge from Sheff you have to drive past a sh*t ton of great places to walk and climb before you even leave the city boundary. My favourite run when I lived there was from Hunters Bar to Stanage High Neb via Redmires and Stanage Pole and back. 
I think the incriminating factor was taking the p*ss.

Fallacy of relative privation.

I think that if you're not at the nearest (to home) of a particular kind of place for a particular type of exercise or recreation in the countryside, then you're more likely to be judged as contravening the law.

So (I think I said this one a previous thread), going from Sheffield to do a route at the Roaches (going past all the Eastern Grit) is not keeping local, but Sheffield to pretty much all the Eastern grit should be considered local.

Driving past hill A to walk up hill B (just because you're bored with walking up hill A) might not be considered a reasonable excuse, etc - simply because it can be easily argued that you can get your exercise or enjoyment of the countryside by walking up hill A - even if you are bored.

You seem to acknowledge all the logical reasons for not wearing masks outdoors, then default to this weird 'just comply' mentality. If you're going to get raged at least come up with a compelling reason.

Does the school request a mask to be worn in that setting?  If so they should be worn.

It isn't otherwise usual to wear a mask outdoors, so you can't complain about others not doing.

Well, quite.

If I was going to take a punt, I'd naturally interpret "stay local" for these purposes as being "stay within your local secondary school and supermarket catchment areas". I think it's hard to make a case that people from the plague infested city of A shouldn't risk spreading covid to the isolated rural community of B by driving to walk up a nearby hill when people from the isolated rural community of B are regularly driving to the plague infested city of A to go to do much higher risk activities like working, taking the kids to school and going to the big Tesco.

Edit: this assuming that we're starting to get out of the phase where hospitals are actually at breaking point and the risk is about spreading covid rather than driving at all.
 

Is there anybody still on this forum think we should be promoting outdoor exercise and fighting for our right to climb, run and bike?

Or just looking for excuses not to do anything anymore and just become a fatty?

Irrespective of what some people think, the elephant in the room isn't at Raven Tor, the real elephants are the overweight and the massive impact they have on the NHS and covid recovery (and costs).

We should be using this time to promote healthy living and ANY exercise at all costs!

dislike away lovely people! x

Yes, obviously at all costs.  You should be organising mass fun runs, preferably indoors, so you can keep thin whilst simultaneously infecting as many people as possible with a virus that preferentially kills fat people.  Win/win! 

I was just nit-picking really, with the description of Longstone Edge as "near Buxton".  It struck me as a weird thing to see in an article condemning a journey from Sheffield as too far to travel.

Nit-picking further there are many splendid places to walk and climb within the city boundary from the North round to the West (and I guess you're talking about Blacka and Burbage), but to the South and South West you're out into Derbyshire almost as soon as you're out of town.

Great Longstone receives supermarket deliveries from Sheffield.  (As does Bakewell, Curbar, Stoney, Hathersage and the Hope Valley.)

Jesus Effin C. There's other things we can be getting on with when it comes to exercise....

It's not forever you know. Though admittedly it's gone on longer than anybody expected last year!

The rock isn't going anywhere. Nobody is taking this away from us for good.

How old are you?

My health, well a bit of me necessary for our activities is heading in a bad direction. It’s not the rules that’s keeping me off the hill right now. 
 

statements like ........ isn’t going anywhere are not comforting and as we enter year two becoming very insensitive, and many are worse off than me.

yeah sorry a bit ranty I know, but we are going down a road of demonising exercise and being outdoors!

I go for a run on the canal and dog shuffling old folk see me as some sort of covid spreading maelstrom. Out on the bike? I'm in the way of every car on an essential journey...

We need to be going down the road of demonising living unhealthy lifestyles, buying too much booze fags and and processed foods.

blimey dave.

I'm sorry if you have confused my passionate (albeit ranty) outcry to get people to me more active as some thinly veiled excuse to euthanise fat people.

chin up eh?

Not always true. My lockdown bouldering has been on one of the few surviving bits of climbable sandstone on the local heathland and it's going places fast. It's on geological fast-forward to oblivion. 

If you put fatties straight onto chin ups you probably will induce a few fatalities. Start them off with some gentle stretching and easy walking.

not as old as u speccy

that the answer u were looking for?

Yeah, walking is the best way to start exercising if you're in really poor shape.  And it's totally compatible with COVID measures, too.

yep. uve anserd al my preconcepshuns

Not really the most well thought through argument. In fact no actual argument presented at all.

Is it a cry for #defundthepolice. ?

Oh FFS grow up.  We've implemented about the cushiest and most lax 'lock down' imaginable.

Your argument was that this wasn't heavy handed policing because policing elsewhere was more heavy handed. I pointed out that this argument was a logical fallacy (the fallacy of relative privation, or "starving kids in Africa" fallacy). I didn't offer an opinion on whether this was or wasn't heavy handed, only that your argument was fallacious. And don't swear at me.

I’d say I’m sorry, but I’m not.

And no, I’m not in to hashtags and bandwagon jumping. I’d quite happily pay the police more, if I thought it was value for money. I’m happy to reiterate that it may well not be the fault of the institution, rather those dishing out the orders in government. However I’ve felt this way to a lesser degree pre-pandemic too.

I'm confused now.

"I have no problem with any individual officer"...... "however as an institution they’re in need of a dire rethink."

And now you are saying

"it may well not be the fault of the institution, rather those dishing out the orders in government."

No-one, certainly on this thread, has been asking for more money. You jumped in saying you think the police "need a rethink" - I'm not sure why, or what changes you want. 

You are happy enough with individual officers, but you appear to be unhappy with the amorphous institution of policing. 

Are you going to expand? 

No, seven others grasped what I was trying to say so I don’t think I need spend any more time on the matter.

We have all of those rights.  Its travelling halfway across the country we don't have the 'right' to do for very good reason.

No that isn't the argument.  The 'argument' is that English policing is NOT heavy handed in a national crisis (very potential crisis, more accurately).   Ruffling a few sensitivities in the interests of public safety is not heavy handed.

You can look at other countries for examples that just might (might) be construed as heavy handed.

But in what way do the police need a rethink? I mean lots of people have been arguing for a long time that as an institution they've needed to rethink things like stop and search, or dealing with domestic violence or whatever - and clearly a lot of changes have been made in those areas, but are you saying that's it's just over policing the pandemic that you want a rethink?

And to anyone interested, Google news found this for me earlier https://cumbriacrack.com/2021/03/08/dozens-of-covid-19-fines-issued-as-visi... No mention of climbers but fines for 'wild' camping* seem to be being given out in the Lakes.

*Probably really just unsanctioned roadside camping.

LOL. 7 people "liked" your post. That doesn't mean they grasped what you are saying.

You don't even seem to know what you are saying yourself, other than some sort of vague "I don't like the police"...

The hills/rock/etc will always be there line irritates me too - it gets trotted out a lot, well-meaningly no doubt (and sometimes very well-meaningly, as an attempt at reassurance), but it's a platitude and is mostly something said by youngish hillgoers. A couple of my regular hill sidekicks are in their mid-70s, and another chap I meet on the hill pretty often turns 80 this summer. They're all remarkably fit and keen, but realistically the hills won't be there much longer for them, at least not in any active sense. The clock is very much ticking, so the sooner they're able to get back out doing what they want to do, the better - it's vital for them in a way that it isn't for someone aged say 30.

You keep on putting words in the mouths of others.. 😴

Because I accept that there is a pandemic going on which is killing people and that there need to be changes in behaviour norms to mitigate the effects.  Others who know better than me, or who at least have the power to alter everyone's behaviour - to whit the school, have asked us to wear masks when dropping off and picking up our kids and to say "Nah I'm not going to do that because I KNOW BETTER and am so very freaking special" is immensely unhelpful.  It's not a big deal to wear a mask so JFDI. ARGGHHHHH.  I'm all ragey again sorry.

Yes I appreciate taking this to the nth level and not questioning the cultural gestalt when it tells you to persecute x or y minority is a moral dereliction but we're talking about something as harmless as wearing a mask for god's sake.

#Maskwars. I see how it happened in the states.

The next step is "Well, we've been asked not to socialise outside our own household, but I KNOW BETTER and can mitigate the risk if I just see folks in my back garden", which becomes them popping in to the loo, which becomes why don't we just sit inside instead because none of us have it do we, which, multiplied by umpty-million times, becomes transmission which becomes a prolongation of this fu*king stupid situation we are in and dead bodies and lost loved ones, because someone thought they didn't have to abide by the guidelines as they were nonsensical.  

And relax.

If one listened to Law in Action this afternoon on Radio 4 they would be aware of the suggestion that none of the Covid 19 legislation passed under emergency powers was valid. The legality of the Police enforcing ‘guidance’ was also brought under scrutiny.

 However the realisation that if a Police Officer asks you to return home (irrespective of whether an offence has been committed) and if you refuse it becomes an offence is jaw-dropping. I’ve lived in the US (where the executive can kill you)!and thanks to Brexit, the Tories, Priti Patel and government incompetence I feel just a little bit less safe than I did in June 2016.

That is not the case. The stay at home rules are still in force up to and including 28 March at the earliest. All that has changed is people can now head outside for 'recreation' as well as 'exercise', alone or with their household / bubble or with one non-household/bubble person.

In reality, the whole exercise vs recreation divide is quite blurred anyway: a lot of exercise is also recreation and vice versa. However one example given in the guidance is that you can sit on a bench, which I think most people would see as recreation rather than exercise. Of course in practice a lot of people were already sitting on benches and so on...

The enforcement approach seems to be sporadic and a postcode lottery. This is inevitable given limited resources. The police also need to consider community relations. I was walking past a reservoir on a nice afternoon two weekends ago, within walking distance of where I live. There were a couple of officers there and they didn't seem to mind that there were a few people sitting in pairs no benches and a couple of groups of 4-5 people. I guess they were taking a common sense approach - better that these people were socialising outdoors as opposed to indoors.

A friend told me they were climbing with a household member at Almscliff a couple of weeks ago. The police turned up and cleared out most of the crag but they were allowed to stay as they were from the same household and lived sufficiently locally (I'm not sure how far away they live, I think 10-15 miles as they're somewhere on the outskirts of Leeds). 

LOL.

You said:"however as an institution they’re in need of a dire rethink."

And have then resolutely refused to clarify what you mean.

So go on then , if you claim that I am putting words in your mouth - what exactly do you mean?

We need more? Less? Greater powers? Less powers?  Different rank structure? What exactly is it about them that needs, not just a rethink but a "dire" rethink?

Without further detail it just comes across as empty sloganeering... 😴

Yes, I have a massive, massive problem with a law that is in effect a penalty for disrespecting a Police Officer.  That is the type of law you get in North Korea, not the UK.

And all because they won't just say, as they should, that the law is to exercise from your front door.

I'm against moral dereliction to shame others into doing things that have no real benefit, you shouldn't be angry at this in my opinion. I feel for parents, they are probably subject to as much peer pressure as their kids.

It’s entirely possible to not be happy with the way an institution has developed and also not have the answers. That’s what public debate is for. Much in the same way reform of the NHS is often discussed, and no doubt will be again in the months and years to come.

Now then officer, if I’m not being detained am I free to go? 

What elements aren't you happy with? It's hard to have a public debate if one side doesn't actually frame their position.

Just as if I said "I think the NHS should be reformed" - it would be entirely reasonable to ask what I would like to see changed.

Yes. As usual you can leave it to the police to get on with their job.

I think the problem is in the law in this context rather than the Police.

Law should have been all the things you are required to do to protect others from COVID, e.g. (in this case) staying nearer home, closing businesses etc.

Guidance should have been the things that might benefit you to protect yourself, e.g. shielding.

We ended up incorrectly in a position where the Police were effectively pressured from on-high to enforce guidance.  That can never end well.

There is also the loss of fitness. I have no legal long slopes and few on the local hills. A sod as you get older. Having crossed to the dark side (bike) I have at least some protection as the Lammermuirs bite on a bike and if you go over them, you have to come back, usually with a side ridge to cross as well.

Having to build up paddling fitness again will be fun too. 

I mean, one possibility here is that they were fairly offhand about the travelling for exercise stuff because it's really not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things and people are wasting far too much energy obsessing over it? I haven't done a comprehensive survey most of what I've seen concerns about from actual public health specialists has been things like adherence to self-isolation, the effectiveness of track and trace and safer conditions for indoor work, not whether people travel five, ten or fifty miles to go for a walk.

The problem could be literally anything - mrphilipoldham won't tell us what it is 🤷‍♂️

As I've said from the very beginning. Law and policing can never deal with a public health crisis. 

The biggest problem we have had with trying to use law to prevent people dying is lawyers - both barrack room and barrister.  The loopholes and inconsistencies have been highlighted and set up as flashpoints.

Luckily a large, if silent, majority have listened to the guidance and the law and done their best to adhere to it.

Only in the most dystopian of science fiction would we have envisaged that humanity's response to a lethal viral pandemic would be to nit-pick about what is "law", what is "guidance" and how far they "should" be entitled to stretch either for their own convenience.

This is genuinely not a loaded question, but do you think that the Derbyshire police (who have done this a few times) have been heavy handed? And do you think that if the Derbyshire police know that these fines won't stick, but are issuing them anyway as a deterrent, that there is a problem there where they are trying to persuade people to not do something that is legal?

Edit: just to be clear, my issue here is the police seem to be enforcing guidance, not the law. And is that... actually legal? I don't like that the police can tell me to go home, when me being out isn't against the law, and then if I say no they can hit me with a penalty fine, and tell me to challenge it in court if I care to do so. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to be concerned about. You might think it's nit-picking on "guidance" vs "law" but... it's actually quite a problematic attitude from the police if they think that they can enforce guidance if they see fit? How is that supposed to give me any confidence that they enforce the law?

I think we can all agree that there would be fewer issues if the law in England was clearer (for example on the distance people can travel), whilst recognising that the legislation can't cover every single eventuality and an element of discretion might need to be applied at times.

Careful what you wish for, we got another kicking yesterday. They are supporting schools opening with making hill visits illegal probably into the Summer.  (For some of us)

Quite right! Next time we must lock down harder, FASTER, BETTER!!

We haven't actually 'locked down' at all, really.

There are probably around 100,000 people who are no longer here who would agree with you.

The effect of our "lockdown" on cases was similar to those European countries that went stricter, though, which would suggest that (the schools debate aside) we got it right.  There's no virtue to being stricter if it doesn't bring better results.

The error has (every time) being going too late and unlocking too early - usually by only a few weeks.

That's nonsense Neil. We were hit hardest in the first wave and yet we had two weeks extra notice and had the benefits of real borders. Italy were in major trouble before they even realised a lockdown might be needed and other European countries were not far behind. They had to be stricter as the growth had gotten more out of control.

"The biggest problem we have had with trying to use law to prevent people dying is lawyers - both barrack room and barrister.  The loopholes and inconsistencies have been highlighted and set up as flashpoints."

This was entirely predictable and easily preventable by tighter legislation. I'm disgusted the police were left in the middle between loose law and the home office minister Patel slavering for blood.

I still maintain Derbyshire police were trying to do their best to reduce covid spread (saving lives) and to respond to the concerns of their local population and I think any mistakes they made were trivial compared to the massively overblown media response (often completely misrepresenting what actually happened). Back then we simply didn't know formite transmission and outdoor transmission was as low risk as we do now.

"The biggest problem we have had with trying to use law to prevent people dying is lawyers - both barrack room and barrister.  The loopholes and inconsistencies have been highlighted and set up as flashpoints."

Spoken like a true policeman. If it wasn't for those pesky lawyers the streets would be free of crime by now wouldn't they?

And as for Derbyshire police, its very hard to see how they haven't just been on a massive power trip. Going for a walk with a coffee does not spread Covid and has never been illegal! Maybe they should try employing some of these lawyers to explain the law to therm before they attempt to enforce it

It's not.

Because we locked down too late despite the warning.

Not true.  The rate of decline was basically the same for both countries.

Given the choice of this dystopian future or the one where you can't question, I know which one I would prefer.

Obviously if you would like to wax lyrical about how the UK Police can't lock down a park and and then compare that to how a country locks down which is currently participating in Uyghur genocide, I'm guessing which dystopian future you would prefer.

"China have locked down a 10 million population city, Harbin, on finding 70 cases.

We struggle to police a park"

If we had used the same measures, but just got the timing right, then the death toll would probably be less than half what it is so far; 20,000 less last April, 50,000 less during autumn & winter (ball park figures).

Getting the timing wrong was a political mistake, which (unless there are factors we don't know about) appears to be because of Johnson's (and no doubt several in the cabinet and definitely many tory MPs) reluctance to impose any kind of anti-libertarian restrictions.

Unfortunately, that means that far too many people have unnecessarily suffered the greatest anti-libertarian measure of all.

Nonsense. Go look up the death data and also from a fixed numbers of deaths correlate back to the likely case rate on the lockdown dates.

We locked down a bit earlier on likely case numbers (too late given the extra notice as SAGE made errors) and deaths compared to Italy (who had double our deaths at lockdown so double a potential peak level locked in, all other factors being equal).

On the declines Spain and France with the tightest lockdowns halved deaths from the peak in under 3 weeks, we took 4. Sweden with the most lax controls took 6 weeks.  The fact that extra pandemic deceleration in France and Spain was occuring well before the peak saved intensive care overload and many lives.

Lockdown one timing was almost all a SAGE error. The government were to blame for behavioural influence from the idiocy of Boris and for the formulation of SAGE with too few outbreak experts with actual experience. Boris was responsible for the delays in September and December (the later delay killed tens of thousands more than necessary).

I think you’ll find those who knew outdoor transmission wasn’t a concerning factor were labelled denialists or Covidiots.

Maybe reasonably so from a sensible risk approach perspective, unless you could see the future. By then it was obvious how nasty this virus was, and a precautionary principle was absolutely the right approach until we knew more.

I'm inclined to agree that the level of the guidance was about right (ignoring schools, eat out to help out etc aside).  Lock down it wasn't and heavily policed it certainly wasn't though.

There was a real problem with legal input on the news that cost lives as it applied pressure to government in their actions and affected the behaviour of citizens. Lord Sumption in particular was given regular airtime when he felt no lockdown was appropriate (epidemiological madness).

In the drone 'powertrip' no one got an FPN and they had been talking to people in the carpark after local concerns were raised.

On the Peppermintteagate 'powertrip', again after local concerns, most people were turned around with no FPN. We still don't know the police side of why they issued the particular FPN.

These so-called 'powetrips' in the middle of a pandemic were motivated by public health concerns and local complaints and were of no consequence beyond a few people potentially paying relatively small fines (of which nearly all were recinded). In contrast the anti lockdown people have a lot of blood on their hands. You're complaining about a mouse when there is an elephant in the room.

Everyone* agrees the Derbyshire force got it wrong at Foremark Reservoir back in January, which is why they withdrew the FPN's and apologised after receiving guidance from the NPCC. 
(*Almost everyone.)

This thread is about a bloke who drove from Ipswich to Stanage ffs.

That Ipswich trip also wasn't against the law. We know now (what we didn't know when Derbyshire made headlines) the actual risk was trivial. The elephant in the room remains that anti-lockdown pressure has blood on its hands.

It was if a court decides there wasn't a reasonable excuse to be making that journey. 

The court system... following appeals... not unlikely as some lawyers have an interest in pursuing this pro-bono. I suspect in reality this pair just paid up.

If the precautionary principle is inclusive of childish labelling and shaming then it’s not a principle that I’d wish to be associated with. I myself was of the belief that outdoor transmission was negligible, yet I also stuck to the rules coz them’s the rules. If I had have gotten involved in the heated debates at the time I’d have been labelled based on educated beliefs rather than actions. Wholly and utterly wrong and indefensible in scientific debate, adult debate even. 

Their choice.  Just as it's your choice, in the absence of a contradictory statement from the police, to continue to insist that Jessica Allen and Eliza Moore are lying anyway in their account of events - based on their appearance and the fact that they had the nerve to talk to a reporter from their local paper about it afterwards.

You acknowledged that the police did not have proper grounds to issue those FPN's (as Derbyshire police did themselves of course), but don't think they should have withdrawn them.  You think they should stand on the grounds that those women must have been 'gobby' when the police spoke to them.

You think I'm being unfair to the police by saying they made a mistake, and also think you're somehow defending them by saying that actually they deliberately issued a fine that they knew was not legally justified because they didn't like (what you assume must have been) Allen & Moore's attitude.

That pretty much sums up our last indescribably dull 1000-post argument about this I think.

Oh, and you think it's absolutely outrageous that I suggested your assumption that those two women were given (and deserved) a ticket for being gobby based purely on their looks might be just a teensy weensy bit sexist.

But again, this thread is not about that, it's about a bloke who drove to Stanage from Ipswich.

I'm sure you agree with me that his fine is rightly and richly deserved, so why would you want to muddy the waters by getting drawn into yet another debate about the completely separate incident in which you are the only person on the planet who doesn't think the police f*cked up?

Besides which kipping away from home overnight for recreational purposes is currently an offence.  Driving while tired has been an offence for a long time, will remain so after the pandemic and has been treated a lot more seriously since the Selby rail crash.

I don't think it would be possible to drive from Ipswich to Stanage, spend the day climbing and then drive home again without one or the other.  (Amphetamines is cheating, and also an offence.)

Pointing out the police side of that incident hasn't been heard is not accusing the two women of lying. If they got the FPN for arguing, they were partly to blame,  but as yet no one other than the two women and the police involved knows. It is suspicious they went straight to the press rather than complaining through the local police complaints procedures. It is odd that others didn't get an FPN (but the picnic explaintion is plausible for a foolish police decision).

As such I never acknowledged the FPN was unfair as I just don't know (and neither do you). I did acknowledge that, if just being there with a tea was all they did wrong that would most certainly have been a clear abuse of sensible police discretion in my opinion.

The sexist accusation is just childish.

I've driven much further in a day for climbing in normal times (under 4 hours each way).

My whole problem all along  is we don't know at what distance driven the English police are supposed to act due to poor drafting of law based on heavy libertarian influences.

..and labelling people Covidiots isn’t?

I think the lack of legally defined distances was a stupid mistake that everyone can agree on.

It's not Derbyshire Police's job to do what they think is the best thing in order to reduce the spreading of Coronavirus. It's their job to enforce the law. And the law is set by the government, and they are the people whose job it is to decide the law based on reducing the spread of the Coronavirus. And that is what they are held accountable for.

If the Police think "well I don't think this goes far enough I reckon I should issue a fine based on this" then that is a problem. Cos that's not their remit. They can get back in their lane, and enforce what it is. And if they don't like it they can moan about it like all the rest of us private citizens do, and vote every few years on the topic. This isn't some sort of radical idea, either. It's the entire basis of the social contract between the Police and the not-Police (I don't like the American term "civilian" because the Police are civilians too); the people elect the gov, the gov enact the legislation, the police enforce the legislation. And they stay out of deciding what the law should be.

I generally support the police in this country. But I never support the police when it comes to enforcing guidance as if it is law. That is not acceptable. And if the police do that, they should get slagged off for it, and depending on how they behave, there should be consequences.

I know that Derbyshire Police acknowledged that they shouldn't have issued that fine, which is why they withdrew it.  Otherwise, yep, I'm just assuming that Jessica Allen and Eliza Moore were broadly telling the truth, just as you are assuming that they're lying.

I knew someone would pop up and say "I can drive all night and it's absolutely fine!" 
Didn't expect it would be you -again- apparently working harder to defend the Suffolk numpty than the people on this thread who are actually trying to defend him.

We used to say the same about drinking.  "Actually Occifer, I drive better after a couple of pints."  Drunk driving remained socially acceptable long after it became illegal, it took a long time for it to become otherwise.  Driving while tired has been steadily moving in the same direction, especially since Selby, so if you add eight hours of driving to a day's climbing and you do start to nod off at the wheel on the way home and get a tug by police who see you drifting about a bit on the motorway, you'd best be prepared for the possibility that they'll decide to treat you like a proper criminal.

Coincidentally, if you drive 4hrs to the crag, spend say 5hrs climbing and drive home again you will most likely be impaired to just about exactly the same degree for the last couple of hours of the drive as you would be well rested but with a couple of pints inside you.  (Ie: right on the current blood/alcohol legal limit.)

As the driver of a lorry or a bus fitted with a tachograph, there would be clear rules that apply.  People who can't live with the concept of 'guidance' could always look there to get an idea of what's 'reasonable' in terms of driving time vs resting.  There again you'd be pushing right up to the legal borderline with 8hrs driving and a day at the crag, or maybe over it depending on what you'd been doing for a day or two before.

Quick google for a link to back that up...
Here's a really obvious one: https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/tired-drivers
Driving/working/resting time rules for goods vehicle drivers: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/drivers-hours-goods-vehicles/1-eu-and-aetr-rule...

I regularly day trip Stanage from MK (about 2-2.5 hours).  There is nothing at all out of the ordinary for that.

It's 3.5 hours from Ipswich which is getting close to a bit much, but if you share the driving between two or more people it isn't necessarily a problem.  I think you're missing the point that a lot of people doing a day trip like that will share driving, and that's made a lot easier by the existence of the mobile apps that do temporary comprehensive insurance cover at quite reasonable prices.

It would be the wrong thing to do during COVID, but in more normal times it's not outside the norm at all.

One person driving up, doing a day's intensive climbing, then driving back, is probably out of order.  But that isn't necessarily what they will do.  A lot of people doing trad will have a lazy day doing a couple of routes and relaxing, too.

That's what we're talking about isn't it?

Well under last week's rules, if they're stopping for a nice long snooze in the afternoon it's hardly 'exercise'.

But sure, in more normal times it's a judgement call.  While I've had a few near misses over the years through making unwise choices by far the closest I've come to killing myself and potentially taking someone else with me was whilst driving and feeling sleepy.

Personally, if I'm up and out of the door by 6am, active all day and still driving as it's getting on for 10pm, I'll probably be really pushing my luck.  (Someone else's as well.)  That's a realistic best-case scenario for a day trip from Ipswich to Stanage if you spend as long at the crag as you do in the car.

2-2.5hrs, yeah, I'd generally be ok there too. 
Not at the moment though obviously, because I'm not that tw*t from Ipswich or his mate from Melton Mowbray.

It had strayed onto the general wisdom (or otherwise) of long day trips.  I've tended towards exercising from my front door during actual lockdown, indeed I've only done otherwise a small number of times, and that was because I met my "bubble mate" for it so we had to choose somewhere.

I'd also consider climbing to be outdoor recreation rather than exercise at the sort of level/intensity I do it.  Though clearly it's a bit blurred.

True, but under this week's rules technically allowed.

Yes, I think the tipping point between sensible and silly is somewhere between 2.5 and 3 hours, probably nearer 2.5.

I disagree.  Protecting lives is a fundamental part of the police mandate.

Not by making the law up themselves.  We have separation of legislature, policing and judiciary for a VERY good reason.

The Police may need to advise outside of the law (e.g. stop someone and ask if they perhaps think they might be taking the mick a bit), but not enforce.

Expect to be arrested or fined the next time you decide to risk things on a nice HVS 4c then.. eh? 
The police are given tools to do the job that is required of them. If they’re not comfortable using them then their gripes should be taken out up the chain of command, not on the general public.

Saving people's lives is a laudable goal for any citizen and a strong reasoning behind the existence of many laws. Where the police (or again, anyone) believe someone is in distress or danger and needs assistance, and/or where laws are broken, I would encourage the police to intervene professionally as of course they do, and often to their credit.

Where laws are not broken, and where people are not in distress or danger, the police can stay in their lane. That's not for them to decide. I don't think anyone here would like it if the police started issuing fines for dangerous behavior because we were trying Not To Be Taken Away without any pads, even if those fines were overturned in court, because it is an intolerable nuisance for the police to be interfering in people's lives unless they clearly need or ask for the assistance or have broken the law.

That's just silly. For under 4 hours you drive for a couple of hours, fill up, and have a piss break and a coffee and go again. Climbers lecturing us on how driving 4 hours after a similar morning drive and some single pitch routes is similar in impairment to drink driving!!! Whatever next???? Goodness knows how someone like Mick Fowler returned from Scotland after a weekend on ice, after so much effort and so little sleep.

In terms of covid guidance and the legal judgement on what constitutes "reasonable"I think they risked an FPN at less than half that distance.  Is that FPN defendable in law?  We don't know, do we, thanks to our useless government?

I hope we find out the legal advice given to police leadership on FPNs but it must have happened so what you assert cannot be that simple. The Home Secretary was encouraging such action on TV interviews (at the same time other ministers were huffing and puffing about civil liberties). Cummings of course blew the whole rule system up.

Yep, a bit of a digression on my part.

So it seems we agree that a solo day trip from Ipswich to Stanage is probably dodgy in 'normal' times (from a road safety PoV), and that it's certainly dodgy now (from a Covid Pov). 

All that leaves us to disagree about is whether or not the police should have been trying to do anything about it last weekend.  Personally I'm glad they were, but beyond that I don't think I've got anything to contribute to this particular debate that hasn't already been said.

In fairness Mr Fowler (or his partners) did wreck a few cars due to falling asleep at the wheel (if I recall correctly)

I think my view would be that the law should explicitly prohibit such a trip during the COVID lockdown by placing a distance limit on travel for leisure purposes.

However, as it hasn't, the Police's actions should be limited to stopping people and asking them if they wouldn't mind being a bit less silly, as to me the risk posed by it being accepted that the Police can enforce things that aren't clearly defined in law (written or caselaw) as illegal is much higher than the risk the climbers posed, because it breaks the important differentiation between legislature, police and prosecutors.

Definitely not against the law ! They are government guidelines ( and have you seen who's in the government !!!!!

The more people that comply the longer this will go on ! I,e , , , forever !  

May as well dig a hole now and get in it

The fact you equate trying to 'police' a global health pandemic to trying to police crime rather proves my point that policing and legislation was never the best way to control a global heath crisis. 

So, thanks.

LOL. The job that is being required in this instance being trying to control a global pandemic of an infectious virus.

Just remind me what tools we had in the form of PPE, vaccinations, medical training ...?

I'm pretty sure I can't drive to Scotland for a non-essential reason without breaking the law. 

That's because Scotland had the sense to put travel restrictions into clear and unambiguous legislation.

In reply to Monkeydoo:

Wawler?

In reply to Monkeydoo:

Right that's it.  You.  Me.  Outside.  NOW. 

LOL. No, your job is to enforce the law as laid down by the democratically elected government. Their unscrutinised guidance is another matter. As you rightly point out, you’re not medically trained so cannot possibly judge whether or not someone is likely to be infectious, nor are you scientifically trained to decide what constitutes the likelihood of spreading said virus. Do you job and stop playing doctors and nurses.

I'm not sure I ever suggested you can't question. I've just never seen a zombie movie where the survivors run around saying "but I should be allowed to run around at night time" and "really, it's my human right to shout and sing loudly when the zombie horde are walking past"

I'd go with the dystopian future where there aren't 100,000 deaths. But maybe I'm just odd like that.

I actually wouldn't; I'd invite you to go and live (and Police) in China etc if you prefer that.  Over history many people have given their lives willingly in wars etc to avoid that situation developing.

Clearly restrictions are needed during this period.  However, only back in March 2020 was it necessary to bypass democratic processes and the separation of legislature, police and judiciary to do this as an emergency thing.  There's been plenty of time to make the law state what needs enforcing, and for the Police to just be enforcing that.

And I'm very firm on my view that fixed penalties should NEVER be used for any offences that are not "strict liability" e.g. speeding, as they effectively seek to bypass due process.  Yes, you can decline one and have your day in Court, but not everyone knows that and it's quite a risk in some cases.

Ah. Never thought I'd see you arguing that we should have been out there stopping cars, demanding reasonable excuses, issuing fines wholesale and replacing the four "e"s approach with "enforce, enforce, enforce, enforce". 

Still, if your idea of changing the institution of policing is to one of more enforcement of the laws of the democratically elected government, then we're gonna need more cops...

I'm not sure that China is the model you assume I'd go with - they are 100,000+ after all.

My point was that if you believe the Police should be able to enforce anything they like because they (either individually or at a Force level) believe it's the right thing to do, then go live in a country where that is the norm.  I don't want that here, I want due process to be followed.  Yes, even if that means we are not quite as safe as we could be.

I've literally spent this entire pandemic saying this public health crisis is not a problem that can or should be solved by policing and legislation.

It was in reply to your point that you'd rather have a dystopian future (which was by extension of others' posts implied to be a Police state) with 100,000 fewer deaths than what we haven't.  And I'm quite firm that I wouldn't follow that preference.

However it's a bit of a false choice, as following exactly the path we have but extending every lockdown by about 2-3 weeks at both ends would have considerably reduced those figures.

Like I said, I’d happily pay for more police if I thought the ones we have gave value for money. 
If someone has broken the law as it’s written then sure, give them a fine. If they’ve broken the guidance then advise and leave ‘em to it. Simple innit.

Driving while sleep-deprived does impair driving in a similar way to having alcohol in the blood, that's just a fact whether you think it's ridiculous or not.

The same way my granddad regularly drove home half pissed from the pub, for years and years.  He got away with it with a little bit of luck and a certain degree of impunity because while technically illegal it wasn't generally considered to be socially unacceptable at the time. 

Later he struggled to get his head around the concept that what had always been thought ok before, even by the village bobby, had somehow come to be regarded as quite a serious crime.

There but for the grace of God, as they say.  Mick Fowler could have been Gary Hart. 

That was twenty years ago - there's no excuse for not realising you'll be treated as a criminal, not the victim of an accident, if you nod off at the wheel and crash now.

That is largely what they're doing.

Perhaps off-duty will correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather thought the police enforce things that "aren't clearly defined" all the time, and always have. 

What is 'reasonable'?  'Disorderly'?  'Threatening'?  'Offensive'?  'Intent'?

None of these are things you can measure with a ruler.  They have to make a judgement as best they can based on their experience and their training.  Later on, a court might end up deciding retrospectively whether they got it right or not.  (Which is where the case law comes from.)

There will always be anomalies but personally I would prefer to see the police using their discretion to enforce somewhat vague rules than rigidly enforcing rigidly defined (and therefore inevitably simplistic) ones.

I assume you mean this guidance?

"We're following 'the 4 Es': Engage. Explain. Encourage. Enforce. First we will try to engage with someone, explain how we think they are breaking the rules, and encourage them to change their behaviour to reduce the risk to public safety and health.

If people still do not follow the rules the police can:

tell them to disperse

tell parents to stop their children breaking the rules

fine them

If someone continues to ignore the instructions, the police can arrest them if they think it is proportionate and necessary." 

(from the met police website)

No in fact I think that seems quite reasonable. But I would like to point out the first point there, "explain how we think they are breaking the rules." But the people in this situation weren't breaking the rules. They were going against guidance, but guidance is not law. They weren't breaking the law, so the police can keep themselves to themselves.

In the event that someone is breaking the rules, then I feel like the four "e's" are very appropriate. But if the Derbyshire police force have a problem where they are repeatedly wrong about giving out these penalties, and yet they are issuing them anyway because they want to be deterring people, then that's 1) absolutely not acceptable and 2) not within the guidance quoted above either.

It is perfectly reasonable for members of the public to be concerned when the police start fining people for doing things that are not illegal, especially when other police officers seem extremely quiet on the matter, almost as if they approve of individual officers acting in this matter. It is the scrutiny of the police by public opinion, journalistic cover and legal challenge which has led to the police being held to the high standard that they absolutely should be. The police are the only people who we let use force to restrain citizens in the country, and the price of that is that if you start dicking about with your authority you should get severely criticised for it. There is a social contract and that's part of it. 

This is where UKC really hits the mark. Engaging in one conversation and then posts relevant to that being used to engage in an entirely different conversation 🤷‍♂️

Well in the interests of fairness; how do you feel about these incidences that have popped up from the Derbyshire force?

What do you get out of this twaddle? I did 4 hour plus drives after a full weekend climbing nearly every weekend I could for decades. If I was feeling tired I'd stop and have a coffee like any responsible person would. Trying to claim a three and a half hour journey on a return trip to Ipswich is equivalent to drink driving, is just silly for anyone; as a climber it's just embarrassing. I made the point about Mick as I couldn't do what he did very often but if three and a half hours is drink driving equivalent, he would be the equivalent of driving after necking a bottle of whiskey. I fully acknowledge too many people drive tired, including climbers. I wouldn't condone that for a second as it could lead to fatalities. When you are feeling tired, stop and have some caffeine, if necessary have a kip.

I did say about half a million posts above here that on investigating further (reading the post on Bakewell SNT's facebook page) it's possible what the Stanage two got the FPN for was camping, not traveling to climb.

It's a shame the people concerned aren't UKC users who could give their side!

Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for your position (that the boys in blue should only issue FPNs when the perps have broken a law) there does seem to be a lot hinging on rules v. guidance v. the law.

The fact is there have been no cases yet (as far as I know) so there is no sense of what will "stick" and what won't. The guidance I assume is meant to be a layman's interpretation of the law i.e. follow this and you are definitely acting lawfully, so not following the guidance (which is I agree worded poorly) means that there at least may be a case to answer.

Also I would look at Derbyshire police against say Northumbria and possibly infer that the upper echelons are instructing their patrols to be mega picky (or put them on commission 😉)

Thanks for that, I'd missed it. Very interesting given some of the arguments here and clearly against the law.

Though not surprising as they actually go climbing.

If you asked me "do you think the police are in an enviably simple position re. law vs guidance" f*ck no, and do I think the government should have been much clearer with these details in law rather than just guidance that the coppers can enforce if they feel like it? Yeah absolutely. If the police, rather than issuing FPNs, said "we would issue penalties, but these things aren't against the law, and we need more than just guidance if you want FPNs" then I'd have all the time in the world for them

There is a problem where different forces are using different interpretations, there is possible a problem where these penalties are not sticking, are being used as a deterrance, and therefore are basically the police trying to intimidate the public (albeit they aren't exactly the chuffin Stasi I admit).

It is a difficult situation. But I can criticise the Tory government for issuing crap law vs guidance legislation while also criticising forces for being heavy handed, not enforcing the law, and making their own choices as to what they feel it should be.

Camping as in kipping in the car presumably?  (I'd be a wee bit doubtful that those Derbyshire coppers went up to the crag and nabbed them bivvying in Robin Hood's cave.)

I saw that and agree, you may well be right. 
That's kinda where I came in on the Stanage two only about a quarter of a million posts above at 1155:
"Besides which kipping away from home overnight for recreational purposes is currently an offence."

Well, nobody has actually 'fessed up to being one of them anyway.  So far. 

It's a global pandemic.  Lives are in danger. Saving lives is part of the police mandate.

People do get moved on (which is all that happens unless you get lippy) from the stapproach to Skeleton Ridge pretty regularly. 

Yes yes yes, you're obviously much more rufty tufty than me but I would be getting dangerous if I drove four hours from home, spent the day climbing and drove straight back.  Maybe that means I'm not a proper climber like what you are, dunno.

I don't think I can be all that unusual though because as I said it would also be pushing at the boundary of what is legal in a situation in which tachograph regulations apply.  Regulations that exist solely and specifically to address the dangers of driver fatigue.

Here are some more links, for the benefit of anyone with a more open mind than yours who might be interested. I fully acknowledge that you think it's all twaddle so please don't feel you have to repeat yourself.

https://www.sleepfoundation.org/drowsy-driving/drowsy-driving-vs-drunk-driv...
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/97936/driving-when-tir...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/27817/driving-drowsy-is-as-dangerous-as-drivi...

Indeed.  And there we've come full circle back to where I came in above at 11:55. 

If you're kipping in the car you arguably deserve an FPN.  If you've put yourself in a position where you might need to stop and have a kip in the car, likewise.  Reason enough for the Ipswich dickhead's FPN alone, quite apart from the distance travelled.  (Though personally I'd be cool with him getting one on those grounds too.)

Only by enforcing laws that exist, though.  Not by making them up.

I think this comes down to this sort of question: "if the law is clearly deficient, should the Police be able to enforce something that is not law in order to prevent possible death/injury".  I can see why some may argue "yes" but I argue firmly "no", because the implications of that becoming the norm are far too dangerous.

Of course the Government could have avoided this by not making the law deficient in the first place, as most countries seem to have managed to do.

To use a case study:

1. Do I think it is sensible for me to get in the car and drive to Stanage this weekend for a day's climbing?  No.

2. Do I think the Government should make it illegal for me to do so, because of (1), perhaps by placing a limit on distance from home for exercise?  Yes.

3. Do I think the Police should, realising (1), issue FPNs for anyone who does drive from Milton Keynes to Stanage for a day's climbing this weekend?  No, because (2) has not happened.

4. Do I think Police should go up to 2m away from people at Stanage, ask them where they've come from, and if it's taking the mick then suggest it might be best that they go home and not come back for the next few weeks at least?  Yes, but not issue an FPN if they refuse.

I hope that makes sense as to my position, even if you don't agree with it.

Right but not like, by issuing £200 fines to people who aren't breaking the law, and especially if they know they won't stick cos they haven't done anything illegal but they want to scare them home.

They could do lots of things, they could physically f*cking smack people in the face who they see outside to make them stay inside. But they shouldn't. 

And how many times has that happened? Compared with the number of lock down infringements ?

And that matters precisely why?

It should not happen at all.  Once is too many times.

Exactly. I have no problem with the police enforcing lockdown laws.

I have a problem with the police using fines to deter things that aren't against the law. Cos that's not their business. And the police don't get to decide what is legal or not. The government does.

Should the laws be better? Yes. Is the solution that we support the police in doing what they fancy? No. Not even once.

Exactly my point

Sorry missed this from you yesterday.

"If the precautionary principle is inclusive of childish labelling and shaming then it’s not a principle that I’d wish to be associated with. I myself was of the belief that outdoor transmission was negligible, yet I also stuck to the rules coz them’s the rules. If I had have gotten involved in the heated debates at the time I’d have been labelled based on educated beliefs rather than actions. Wholly and utterly wrong and indefensible in scientific debate, adult debate even."

The precautionary principle is where risks are not clear, be careful: an especially important response in a lethal pandemic with a new virus . The separate point I was making was that if people were acting on their belief (based on very little evidence at that time) that there was very low risk outdoors and for formite transmission, and so blatently ignoring rules and guidance, they could fairly be critiqued as covidiots. Yes it's a bit childish but having a pandemic with people dying is pretty emotive. So, maybe you could explain your educated beliefs?

The process is ask them to go home first, then issue FPNs if the person continues to be a lippy dipshit.

I'd agree with that if things were more clear cut. Yet the police must have been advised what constituted reasonable in the legal position of a "reasonable excuse" or they wouldn't have decided institutionally to issue FPNs. They don't just make stuff up. Policing has shifted to much more focus on the community they serve with police commissioners. More importantly we have a completely loose cannon as Home Secretary in a govenment flirting with libertarian ideas. The context for all this is a lethal pandemic. The position of the police is incredibly difficult.

The trouble is that the Police are left with discretion as to when they should be telling people to go home and when not, which I see as really wrong because it gets down to individual opinions*.  FPNs don't work well for stuff that isn't strict liability.  Speeding is an obvious example of where they work - if your vehicle is travelling above the posted speed limit then you have committed an offence - there are no get-outs or mitigations bar blue lights.  This concept works terribly for "woolly" stuff.

I don't disagree that FPNs were needed due to the potential volume of infringements, as such the law should have been, as it was in most countries, prescriptive.

* There's a key difference between being an arse (i.e. giving an Officer a gobful of abuse) and just saying "but, Officer, I drove here because I was meeting in the middle with my bubble-mate" or similar - unfortunately some Officers see that as "not respecting my authoritaaaah" and would issue a FPN for the latter rather than doing due investigation e.g. finding out who that was and where they lived and if both lived alone.

You completely failed to answer my point. Regardless of my reading, I stuck to the rules coz them’s the rules however I’d still have been labelled a Covidiot for partaking in scientific debate and having a dissenting voice away from the precautionary principle, even if it was made clear that my actions were following said principle. It’s piss poor behaviour. As is refuting being called out as sexist, whilst having the temerity to label others. 

Who labelled you as a covidiot?  I'd totally agree with you that calling someone following the covid guideance a covidiot, for discussing counter-issues to guideance (in a reasonable way), is out of order. I was accused of being sexist by someone setting up a 'strawman' about "gobby women", also out of order. Yet, many things said online are out of order...it comes with the territory.

Now how about explaining why you believed outdoor risks were low back then? It's difficult to have a sensible 'scientific debate' about unknowns.

No one on here, as I decided not to get involved with the debate. I did see it of others, and was personally derided elsewhere on t’internet. The vitriol I read on here was generally accompanied with a visual image of everyone with bobble heads in the school playground running round calling each other names. 

My work in professional sport was the very first thing to be curtailed, I stopped working over two weeks before the lockdown began so I had plenty of time on my hands to read up on what was coming. I read as much as I could about respiratory virus and how they’re transmitted. My own conclusion was that outdoor it wouldn’t be an issue and so hoped that outdoor meetings wouldn’t be stopped - alas they were. Unfortunately my browser history doesn’t go back 12 months, and I wouldn’t want to derail the topic of policing the pandemic in this thread anyway so I can’t show you everything I found. I decided to follow the rules as despite what I believed to be true, there was indeed an element of the unknown and accepted that I could well certainly be wrong.  Still got called a denier on Facebook. Shrugs shoulders.

The debate here has somewhat been dominated by the foolishness of the "cotton wool" faction and the "let it rip" faction. It's hard not to react to stupid lines of argument. 

I too followed the covid science very closely as I was effectively no longer working at the point the first news hit and it was a good distraction from my issues at work. I was also influenced by many friends at the front-line in the NHS, social care, and education; and some in covid related microbiology, testing, SAGE and Independent SAGE. Also being close to the BMC and with friends in the outdoor industry I saw that impact. As a married couple all four of our parents were highly vulnerable and quite a few friends (I  am so glad none have died and only a small number were infected). I have friends with long covid who were fit and healthy.

On the science there was nothing in the first wave that indicated formite risk was as low as it turned out to be. That is pure luck. There was soon apparent evidence in Europe, from football matches, that crowded outdoor transmission might be a risk (later largely discounted due to associated indoor interaction). There was never any evidence of risk for social distanced outdoor activity with good hand hygene and that was negligable risk was clear from the time of the first lockdown.

I'd like to know more detail, but given that a few appear to have been retracted they've clearly been wrongly issued.

As far as I'm aware there is no particular drive to issue them, it's very much been a 4xE' s approach is in my experience. In fact, given the admin around them i think many are generally stopping at the third E, or using the fact that people comply as a reason not to issue, when on occasion, enforcement might be more appropriate.

I think it's interesting but entirely normal in policing for bad examples to be highlighted and magnified whilst good practice is ignored, despite the fact that is the overwhelming majority of police activity.

It's interesting, as this thread demonstrates, that policing is a subject that everyone (understandably I guess) has an opinion on. What's funny is how everyone's opinion appears to be that if an expert.

Fundamentally this is not a policing or legislative problem. It's a public health crisis.

If everyone followed the guidance we wouldn't need any enforcement. If the guidance matched the law, we'd have a lot less of these discussions, and the police job would be marginally less thankless.

As it is we've basically been set up to fail. I'd say that was due to incompetence rather than conspiracy.

What is bizarre, but I guess is also human nature, is that for many the police have become the "enemy" in this viral pandemic.We go home to families. We put them and ourselves at risk. We are bound by the rules like everyone else.  We also get ill and we also die.

I think this is an argument which simply cannot be stated as fact. There are legitimate moral arguments around what is right/wrong, and what is justifiable (maybe some wrongs are justifiable, or maybe the ends cannot justify the means) in the current situation - to refuse to accept that there could be an alternative view is simply bigotry (bigot: "A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.").

The charge may well stick, but I think one also has to accept that the lockdowns have directly and indirectly resulted in the death of some number of people (and suffering for more), thus it could also apply to "pro-lockdown people". Of course there are many moral aspects to this debate. It appears that your position is drawn from a belief that the answer to the question "would more people die without the current government actions?" is "yes". However, that is not the only relevant question:

• Does this automatically imply the action is right?
• Are the lives of those people who die of the coronavirus worth more than those who die due to lockdowns? By what measure can you determine the worth of one life over another? Who is to choose?
• Is there a moral difference between suffering through an "act of God" event, compared with those explicitly caused by human action? Is an asteroid impact equally "immoral" to the detonation of a nuclear bomb over a city if the outcomes are the same?
• What value does one place on 2% of the life of every single person? On suffering?
• You talk about "libertarians" as if a belief in freedom of the individual is a bad thing, what value does freedom have? Are others not entitled to value this more highly? Are there downsides to training the population to only do what they are encouraged to do by the state? Is state coercion not a form of bullying?
• Is it moral to force one person to suffer to the benefit of another? How does that balance change given uncertainties around the potential suffering on both sides? Is it selfish to wish to try and protect those you are close to if that means others suffer?
• Is "the ends justify the means" ever a valid argument? If so, when and for whom?
• ...no doubt many more! This is before we even throw any real world facts in to the equation which may affect our emotional responses to the issues.

Maybe you reach different conclusions to I on some or all of these, and a moral relativist would argue there is no right answer to any of them ("right, for you" and "right, for me" being closer to the truth) - it is most certainly open for debate and a lot comes down to how each individual weighs up the factors. To make a statement like the above suggests at best an unsophisticated analysis of the issues, at worst exceptional conceit.

Personally I have believed throughout this entire affair, and still do, that there is nobody to "blame" for the virus, or the deaths it causes (unless one genuinely believes it is a bio weapon deliberately unleashed upon the world by China). To seek to apportion blame is unhelpful, does not progress the debate in any way and as we can see from this thread is the cause of constant bickering. Maybe we are simply at a point in time where we know enough to see what is going on, but not enough to do much about it.

I suspect what I have written could equally be applied to many of the "great political fights" we must endure at this point in history!

Your post is a perfect illustration of where the rhetoric of opinion about the niceties of opposing viewpoints, politics, law and philosophy hits the buffers of scientific reality. Covid 19 is an exceptionally nasty virus. The lockdowns were always primarily about stopping hospitals being completely overwhelmed and the disastrous if not catastrophic impact that would have on society. The only other distinct choice was to let much larger numbers of people die painfully at home or elsewhere (a form of eugenics) and an even larger number to suffer long term disability in the various conditions grouped under the term long covid. The majority of knock-on deaths because of lockdown and most of the economic damage were a direct result of failed pandemic control, they were not a 'trade off'. Countries with better control of the virus had much less disruption to 'normal' life. Manaus in Brazil shows us the closest to what the out of control situation looks like and that's with the local medical establishment and some politicians there trying to implement control measures.

The public anti-lockdown brigade have blood on their hands. They put the advertisement of their opinion and politics above scientific realities and encourage others to do the same.

AFAIK there were only two ways of controlling case numbers without significant effect on normal life. (a) rigorous test, trace and isolate and/or (b) country-wide isolation. The government failed on the first and chose not to undertake the second. In fairness, for the first option it helps to have a society which accepts government interference and control such as mandatory apps on phones as in e.g. China, Korea etc. Not so easy in a more libertarian society. Germany looked initially like it was managing well through test and trace, but didn't over time.

Lockdown wasn't inevitable but when cases were heading towards hospital limits, despite other control measures, there was simply no choice (unless we left people to die in huge numbers outside hospital and even then disruption to hospitals would still have been huge given the infection control requirements). The other scientific factor with 'running hot' was the risk of mutations which sadly led to Manaus suffering hospital system breakdown twice despite any herd immunity arising alongside the mass deaths and public chaos of the first wave.

Just as you feel my post proves your point, I also feel that yours proves mine. Never the twain shall meet!

There is plenty of room to argue politics, philosophy, morality and the law around specific measures but the necessity of some form of lockdown when a few weeks of exponential growth away from hospital capacity limits is simply scientificly undeniable, unless you are eugenicist.

That's fair enough. I don't really disagree other than on two points; there does seem to be a repeated pattern from certain forces who are issuing FPNs and them getting overturned, they should be more careful in issuing them.

And the other is that the police receive public scrutiny but the public are largely not police officers, and that's fine. The police do and should receive comment from the public without expert opinion as they are the people whose consent the police require to fulfill their social role. The police need to be aware that they are going to have to defend themselves against views from ordinary members of the public and that's just the cost of doing their business. Similarly it is okay for people outside of the House of Commons to have views on the actions of people within. These are state functions and the confidence of non-expert opinions is necessary.

Personally I don't see the police as the enemy, although I think that plenty of police probably see me as the enemy cos I'm pretty harsh with my standards when it comes to them. I would ask the officers who issued those FPNs, incorrectly, how did they see the people they issued them too? And why? Were they 100% convinced they were correct to do so? Or where they throwing their weight around and trying to scare off outsiders? Police intimidation does exist and it is wrong. So I agree that the combative relationship is often poor; the police do have a habit of being combative more than their nice peelian principles and press conferences from senior officers would suggest, and part of the reason why some people see the police as "the enemy" can be due to poor police behaviour. Hillsborough Disaster. Tomlinson. Martin Lawrence. Stop and Search. Kettling. These things are big names... but they colour things.

I'd also say that the police also are often required to enforce laws which seem to specifically exacerbate poor relationships and for that I don't blame them. Although I do think if you are a copper then you sign up to enforce the law and if that law is wrong... that's who you are too, cos you are the one enforcing it. So to an extent I don't have that much sympathy.

As an aside, I actually had to deal with the police this evening (on a completely unrelated manner to anything to do with lockdown) and they were very friendly, professional and open. So credit where credit is due.

Thanks for the recognition.

Perhaps worthy of consideration that it appears you have put aside your actual personal experience of police behaviour and instead judge them on your opinion on what happened  re Hillsborough (32 years ago) , Tomlinson (12 years ago) and Lawrence (I'm guessing you mean Stephen, not Martin - 28 years ago)

(Edit to add - calculating that definitely made me feel old! And I've certainly changed over that time period!)

I judge the police based on what I know of them from my own experience and what I hear from the experiences of others, same as everyone else, on everything else! My point re. those things was that anti-police sentiment is not born out of the police always acting in the most saintly of manners and being unjustly maligned by beardy anarchist types. "...part of the reason why some people see the police as "the enemy" can be due to poor police behaviour [examples then given]" and this is not unreasonable IMO. Personally I do not consider the South Yorkshire Police to be the same department as the ones who covered up the Hillsborough Disaster but these events do damage faith in the police, inarguably so, the repercussions are still felt today (ask people in Liverpool what they think of the South Yorkshire Police Force) and that is important.

My own interactions with the police have all been very positive, if you are curious. But that is not a universal experience. And therefore I don't fall into the trap of saying "well I have never had a problem with them" because... we are talking about broader experience.

I take that on board - I'd just caution against coming to conclusions based on second + hand reporting of high profile incidents over a 30+ year period.

Bear in mind - they make the headlines because they are not the norm, rather than because they are common place.

I'm glad to hear it! And bear in mind the millions of interactions police have with the public every single day, you might imagine my frustration when we end up not just being criticised (that's entirely part of the job and the scrutiny that should be expected)- but being judged as if these incidents are typical and symptomatic of general police/public interaction.

They are somebody's norm, though. A failure of standards by the police can change lives, can ruin lives, can end lives. We have seen that over the years. And we have seen cover ups too. Now issuing a £200 fine is certainly not that and I am not pretending it is, but a healthy criticism of the police is important in any functioning democracy (as we both agree) and something that actually the police do need cos otherwise they wouldn't change and improve! And my own objections to the police issuing penalties for things that are not illegal is more a point of principle and, IMO, not an unreasonable or illegitimate one. 

I think that it is fair to say in this particularly circumstance my ire is influenced by; 1) I am forcibly sat at home with a lot of time on my hands, and therefore I can spend an unusually large amount of time (for me) getting vexed on the internet, and 2) there does appear to be a teensy bit of a pattern from certain forces on certain things that does need bringing up on the issue of FPNs that don't stick and you might even suspect they know that and are issuing them anyway...

But no, I don't believe those interactions are necessarily the experience of everyone. That said they do need to be raised as significant when they are the interactions some people get. And also the police are big boys and girls, and I am sure they will live with a bit of healthy public agitation over the public f*ck-ups rather than praise over the day to day efforts. That said if it helps; yes it was wrong to treat a public health crisis as a matter for criminal justice, yes it was wrong to create unclear legislation and rely on even more unclear guidance, no I do not envy the police's job to interpret that with little direction direction from the government, and yes I do think that largely individual officers and forces have been doing their best in a difficult time, with some public fuck-ups overshadowing a lot of what I imagine is solid effort.

(and, as an aside... for some communities and some people in the not to recent past and indeed now... negative experiences of the police are actually the norm, according to them, so there is that. But it's not really relevant to climbers in Stanage I'll grant you).

This debate is becoming increasingly academic as we approach the English travel unlock on the 29th... Have to say I'm glad the weather isn't as good as this time last year, so I'm not really tempted to get out climbing anyway. Given how things are going with Covid and the vaccines, I'd be pretty happy heading out from the 29th as and when the weather and work permit. From the start of this latest lockdown, my working assumption that a return around Easter time would be on the cards and so it seems. I'm assuming here that the 29th won't get pushed back - can't be sure of course but don't think it would be.

Edit - the revised 'minimise travel' guidance is pretty vague and I'm not sure we're going to get any more details but with the end of the 'stay at home' rules I'm assuming the police will no longer be required or able to enforce travel restrictions. In practice, the ban on overnight stays until 12 April (which might get pushed back - too early to tell) will limit how far most people would be willing to travel. Having been a fairly good citizen and with the Covid and vaccine numbers looking good, I'd be happy heading out to do some sport but avoiding busy crags and keeping my 'climbing bubble' fairly small, as I was doing all of last year. Having had the jab today at the grand old age of 40 also helps (my local GP surgery are now onto to over 40s, though whether this will change following today's news is a good question).

Whilst I generally agree with you on your points on how the police should be subject to scrutiny (I've never argued we shouldn't) your two re-edited posts do very much come across that the only view of police behaviour you consider representative is that which others report as bad.

Even if that means excluding your own experiences as somehow not relevant.

​​​​​​

If a Doctor successfully treats every patient in their career they encounter, and then through neglect kills a couple of patients, then they still get struck off, and they have failed to uphold their duties.

If a police force has 9/10 interactions with the public as good and up to the standards, and 1/10 interactions the force lets the standards down, I consider the force to have failed to uphold their standards. That might seem harsh (and I would not advocate for penalties against officers who were in the 9!) but again these are people the public allows to handcuff us and put us in police vans, and allows them monopoly on using force against citizens. And therefore yes, I consider things like the reports in 2019 that 38% of met officers had not been properly vetted, and the ongoing problems with stop and search, and so on and so force, to be of greater significance.

It's not disregarding my own experiences as not relevant but rather understanding that my own experiences do not necessarily reflect the experiences of others.

I would also say that this is all my commentary as a private citizen, and as a private citizen, I hold the police to a high standard (which they often meet) and that's, to me, not unreasonable. My brother is a copper, and I love him (don't tell him I said that though) so it's fair to say that I am not unbiased against the species. 

It's a very odd comparison: an individual being negligent versus an organisation.  By your analogy, the NHS need to be dragged through the dirt for the actions of that doctor.

I saw a great video earlier by the parkour team Storror which highlights the pandemic policing problem perfectly (I'd link to it, but it's paid content and inaccessible without a subscription). Two police encounters, and two completely different results. In the first, the police simply aren't interested in reasonable discussion. Instantly cautioned and fined, no discussion, nada. "If you want to take it to court and contest it in front of a judge, you're more than welcome". In the second, they have a reasonable and grown-up two-way discussion, and the police leave satisfied. They weren't even moved on.

These are professional athletes who make money (and ultimately pay their rent) only by producing parkour content. No laws being broken - they're at work and taking sensible precautions in the workplace. And yet the police can't manage a consistent response. It's hardly surprising; all it needs is the combination of poorly-written law and muscle-flexing constables and suddenly people are being fined unreasonably. And who is realistically going to contest a £30 fine and risk an equally unreasonable magistrate penalising them even further?

When there are failures in the provision of care I absolutely would expect there to be strong criticism, inquiries, resignations from the board where appropriate etc. "Dragged through the dirt" I suppose that depends how you see it. 

Anyway at this point I feel like we're going in circles.