Are Easter eggs non essential? Should the police use drones to shame people on public media? Are we (as former supreme court justice Lord Sumption suggested) headed for a Police state. The NPCC are hurriedly reminding their members that they cannot bar people from driving to exercise, and also suggesting that they cannot enforce a "one exercise a day" on people.
Given that the world has become hard enough for this, do you think the cops have overstepped the mark, and have misread the advice? Or are they just trying to find their way, like the rest of us, in a new and unfamiliar world?
wait til you see what the mods are like on new COVID threads...
I'll start caring once all this is over
The only people I’ve seen seriously moaning about some Peak District drone footage are the people who also call for the police in London to be routinely armed. Some attention grabbing moves were needed after the public decided that stay at home meant weekend in the countryside. The police see their role as being more than protecting middle aged middle classed people from lower class yoofs, they’re trying to stop the spread of a disease that could kill us and them. They are on the frontline of this and need our support, not our self entitled moaning.
I’m more worried about the local community Facebook lynch mobs
My observations would be that police are people too - working with limited and unclear guidance, trying to do their best to protect their communities and their family, scared of the impact that the virus will maybe have. They are working longer shifts to cover the essentials whilst colleagues are self isolating, and many will have had all their leave through easter and early summer cancelled (and many forces had already cancelled leave in hte autumn for the climate change conference that was due to take place. My view is that like most of us they are doing their best.
Police have been spot on AFAIC.
Even if you think some of their actions are OTT (I don't) they have certainly got publicity for the rules. I bet lots of people who didn't realize that you couldn't drive to your exercise are now aware because of media exposure of the Police's actions.
TBH I'm not too worried about the powers they have now, it's more the powers they'll hold on to once the immediate emergency is over. For example one commentator here in Spain was happily bleating on about all of us having tracking software on our phones, to ensure we're complying with any quarantine restrictions that may be put in place. That kind of thing.
Having police officers tied up defending overzealous interpretation of the actual laws by their superiors isn't going to do any of us any good.
people who didn’t realize that you couldn’t drive to your exercise are now aware because of media exposure of the Police’s actions
And yet, legally there is nothing to stop you.
We're in a weird situation where the public mood is more authoritarian than the law.
The police were handed a really difficult job by the Government with unclear regulations. And things like Gove making stuff up on the hoof about 30 minute runs and 1 hour walks is incredibly unhelpful
Police Chiefs are going to set some guidance out - which will help
Some attention grabbing moves were needed after the public decided that stay at home meant weekend in the countryside
A minority of the public
Most people are following the letter and the spirit of the rules.
I'm as annoyed at the dicks taking the piss by driving 40 miles to ride the gnar especially if we end up with a moral panic that restricts my one hour local run. But I think the biggest risk of that is a Daily Mail type overreaction about the minority being ducks
Roadblocks in the countryside will end when looting starts in the towns.
Take a look at the rules in South Africa. No alcohol, cigarette, non-essential sales.
So you can go into a shop, but can't buy a pen or batteries as those are not essential.
No cigarettes for some people will be a major problem too.
We’re in a weird situation where the public mood is more authoritarian than the law.
Stopping the spread relies on the public acting accordingly. If it takes new draconian laws to make that happen, then sadly it may be needed, but let’s try sorting this without a legal lockdown. Please. If people insist on pushing the law to it’s limit, then we’ll all end up living under laws that no one really wants to be introduced, especially the police themselves.
Or are they just trying to find their way, like the rest of us, in a new and unfamiliar world?
Easter eggs are most definitely an essential as they will be a morale booster and give a bit of normality to a situation that people are going to be struggling to cope with.
It’s an issue with vague guidelines that allow too much interpretation and er probably some numpties incapable of realising that they are not in fact Judge Dredd.
And as weeksy says it’s more important after this is over although it would be prudent to see how things play out as a Crisis is is the perfect opportunity for Implementing bad things.
And yet, legally there is nothing to stop you.
Yes there is. You're not allowed to travel except for 13 specific exceptions of which exercise is not one. You can exercise but you can't travel to exercise.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents/made
A minority of the public
Hundred of thousands of people. Sadly. That weekend was nuts in outdoor tourist hotspots. Busier than ever.
bet lots of people who didn’t realize that you couldn’t drive to your exercise
Like the Police? There's no rule to stop you, you do understand that, right?
If you need a law to take the right actions, then you’ll get one, and the job of the police will suddenly become next to impossible (and require military involvement). Look at what has had to happen in other countries. Let’s try and avoid those measures.
It’s an issue with vague guidelines that allow too much interpretation
Hastily drafted laws are always bad laws.
Would you rather they'd spent adequate time on it? Properly reviewed it in both houses? Maybe get the new watertight law in places by May 2022?
No nor me.
Let's work with what we have. 99.5pc of people totally get it. The morons who are ignoring it would have probably also ignored a law that had been drafted 'properly' over a couple of years.
Like the Police? There’s no rule to stop you, you do understand that, right?
Yes there is. You’re not allowed to travel except for 13 specific exceptions of which exercise is not one. You can exercise but you can’t travel to exercise.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made
Easter eggs issue wasn’t police - but trading standards / environmental health from local authorities. If someone is going to misinterpret the rules and over exert their authority then local authority clipboard bashers are the people to worry about.
I’m not particularly worried that the police have potentially interpreted the legislation more strictly than they could/should. It’s the purpose of the courts to interpret the law not the bobby on the street. (Unfortunately the courts aren’t functioning normally at the moment so it’s likely the virus has passed before you find out who was right). I’m more concerned that despite it being quite clear that there are acceptable reasons to be outside your home I see social media full of people proclaiming there are not and lambasting everyone else (presumably these are the people with a 12 week supply of toilet rolls and pasta who ignored the please don’t hoard advice). I’m not advocating people go mingling, or making needless trips.
Round here if you were to go for a walk or run on the most obvious routes (the places people normally do) it’s very difficult to maintain 2m as they are genuinely busy - from about 11am to sunset. 15000 people in the town on two real routes. There’s plenty of other places to walk if you just use the now really quiet roads. The covid deaths are easy to count, the long term loss of fitness and mental health issues from being locked up for three months are not so easy.
There’s a lot of people of varying levels of intelligence learning a whole new way of life. Maybe a little leeway and compassion should be afforded in this thread all of those that are experiencing or enforcing their public duty in these challenging and changing times.
Which bit of spread do people not get? If you visit an area, you risk spreading the virus to that area, and to the areas that other visitors come from. STAY THE **** AT HOME! The police are doing what they can to get the message out there.
OOB that legislation you keep referring to, isn't the one you think it is. It's the one that grants powers to the Police to detain people they reasonably suspect of actually having Covid-19, and sets out powers to detains them and restrict their movements.
Which is why it's useful that the NPCC are putting together guidelines.
A clear set of rules will make it more comfortable for everyone
PURITY SPIRAL!!
Which is why it’s useful that the NPCC are putting together guidelines.
Yep. Inconsistency isn't helping the public or the police
Arse spiral.
OOB that legislation you keep referring to, isn’t the one you think it is.
Thanks edited to correct the link in the second post. Too late for the first post.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/madeblockquote >Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;
(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;
(e)to donate blood;
(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(g)to attend a funeral of—
(i)a member of the person’s household,
(ii)a close family member, or
(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;
(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;
(i)to access critical public services, including—
(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);
(ii)social services;
(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);
(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;
(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;
(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;
(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.
It would help if the police upheld the law and not whatever todays press Minister has said. The law is reasonably drafted, the enforcement of it is being poorly implemented.
Anybody mentioning non-essential travel is NOT applying the law as this is not mentioned in the legislation. A principle of our law is anything not forbidden is allowed.
For clarity I have changed my mind from my original thoughts on this after a lot of reading as I was one of those who supported the Derbyshire approach. I now see that this is conducive to policing by consent and officers remaining of the public while protecting the public.
It would help if the police upheld the law and not whatever todays press Minister has said.
If you want insanely tight laws to stop the spread, you’ll get them. To avoid that follow the “advice” and “guidance” and don’t be a legal loophole chasing dick.
It's interesting that Lord Sumption chose to highlight that "Police State" in his mind refers to not some vast scope of draconian powers given to the Police, but in fact vague powers hastily drawn and interpreted by the Police in the way they think that a Govt would like.
Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, [...]
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
So legally there's nothing to stop you driving to the Peak District to go for a walk. Not saying it's a good idea, but legally the police can do nothing to stop you. (And presumably if they do try to stop you they themselves are breaking the law).
Police are trying to do a really tough job in difficult circumstances. Anyone criticising them needs to have a good long think about whether you are being part of a solution or adding to their problems.
Lots of organisations will need to have a "lessons learnt" exercise when this is finally over. They don't need heckling from the internet sidelines while they are in the middle of it trying to keep the public safe.
Outofbreath; that 'stuff' doesn't say you can only go out once a day....
It puts no limit on the number of excursions it just says you should have a "reasonable excuse" for each trip :o)
And I'm not being a Dick - just pointing out the problem with recent interpretations and how other interpretations are also valid.
It’s interesting that Lord Sumption chose to highlight that “Police State” in his mind refers to not some vast scope of draconian powers given to the Police, but in fact vague powers hastily drawn and interpreted by the Police in the way they think that a Govt would like.
So what? It's a national catastrophe. We've all consented to temporarily live under house arrest for a period of time under rules that in any other circumstances would be widely ignored (and if enforced would lead to the government being forcibly overthrown).
The crisis will end within a year or so. There's near zero chance the rules will stay in place once the crisis ends and if they do there's 60 million people who will forcibly ensure the rules end and the army and the police force will be on 'our' side.
Putting dye in lakes and using drones in such a manner is unacceptable no matter what.
So legally there’s nothing to stop you driving to the Peak District to go for a walk
Quite. This is the issue that Lord Sumption highlights. and neatly identified by the likes of OOB who think that the rules say one thing, when they can clearly say quite the opposite.
We’ve all consented to temporarily live under house arrest
ummmm, really? That's what you think has happened? wow.
Indeed, the laws are loose. If you wanted to you could find ways of just getting on with everything you’d normally do. But then you’d be a dick.
Driving to the Peak District for exercise is not a reasonable excuse. Go for a walk from your door.
“Stop Being a Dick” is even being used by police on social media.
OOB
Yes there is. You’re not allowed to travel except for 13 specific exceptions of which exercise is not one. You can exercise but you can’t travel to exercise.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made/blockquote >
If you look at the SI you are quoting, restrictions on movement, section 6 paragraph b states "to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;" as one of those 13 exceptions. ?
My observations would be that police are people too – working with limited and unclear guidance, trying to do their best to protect their communities and their family, scared of the impact that the virus will maybe have.
this
That lord whosit is just being a twerp
There is no law to stop us ALL driving to the Peak District today and riding in pairs. The Police could tell us all that the advice is that we shouldn’t be doing so, but they could not stop us. They would be right to tell us what the advice is. They would be wrong to arrest us for not following it. They would also, in my opinion, be right in calling us all out as dicks.
If we don’t do what needs doing to stop the spread, many more doctors will die. At that point the law might have to be changed to deal with arses who fight back against pleas for us to modify our behaviour during this difficult time.
that ‘stuff’ doesn’t say you can only go out once a day
I didn't say it did & nobody in this thread is arguing about "once a day".
...but if you want to argue about that, ff course the test is 'need'. The prosecution simply has to make the case that you don't "need" more than one exercise outside session a day and I'd have thought they'd easily win that except for people with very rare medical situations that require multiple exercise sessions outdoors.
