I tend towards the idea that questioning those in power (even in extraordinary circumstances) does not make one necessarily "a dick"
For what it’s worth my local Police Service are being very good imho, they’re tweeting about people they’ve stopped flouting the rules but they’ve always been stopped for no insurance, speeding etc first. They’re not just routinely stopping people (in cars or on foot) apart from a few spots they’ve set up (they’re avoiding the term road block) like Barry Island / Story Arms etc.
The problem with Warrington Police’s social media output is it seems almost bullying in it language. U.K. Police do so by consent, if they use these emergency powers to make it a draconian police state then people with flout the rules just because they don’t want to be bound by them.
And I don’t care how civil minded the average Police Officer is, they won’t want to give them up after this is over.
OOB
But it does not say that you CAN NOT drive to exercise.
That's the issue. It says what you can do: vis-a-vis leave your house 'to take exercise alone or....etc.' in the same way as it says you can leave the house 'to donate blood' or 'to fulfil legal obligations' or 'obtain basic necessities' and so on.
No-one (I think, but this is STW) says you can't take your car to the supermarket. We know some have different views on the advisability of taking a short (or long drive) to get exercise but legally it is in the same legislation with the same wording and therefore unless you also say the law says that you have to walk to the supermarket as well then your argument is inconsistent.
I tend towards the idea that questioning those in power (even in extraordinary circumstances) does not make one necessarily “a dick”
I tend towards travelling unnecessarily is being a dick.
Putting dye in lakes and using drones in such a manner is unacceptable no matter what.
Bollocks. The number of people getting into trouble in that lake, and putting rescuers at risk, was getting silly. Regularly on the local news.
And using drones to show people up for meeting up, having BBQs, travelling from Ipswich to the Peak - seems fine to me. The message got through as it was much quieter last weekend. Job done.
I don't care if anyone sensibilities got offended by it.
Mranwhile yesterday my other half phoned 101 to report dirt bikes on the canal towpath and some other footpaths and bridleways who almost run her the dog and my son over and was told they were legal....ffs had it been normal times I'd have been down the station complaining. I understand they might well be too busy to do amything but to try and pass it off as legal is ****ing awful!
They put dye in that lake every spring because it is massively toxic and not safe to swim in. Nothing to do with Covid.
ummmm, really? That’s what you think has happened? wow.
If not that, what do you think is happening?
So legally there’s nothing to stop you driving to the Peak District to go for a walk.
Not at all. The exception is to exercise outside of your house if you need to. The exception is not to drive to somewhere nice to exercise. No doubt some disabled people genuinely need to drive as part of their outside exercise but most of us wouldn't pass the need test.
The word 'need' can do a lot of heavy lifting!
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.
The legislation you keep quoting contradicts the point you are trying to make. It explicitly says you CAN leave home to exercise and does NOT say you can't travel to do it.
But 'unnecessary' is interpretative in itself. That's the issue. People can make the case that it's necessary to drive a short distance with minimal risk to a place where you can walk away from others - necessary to allow you to observe proper social distancing, for example. Making the case that you can drive 50 miles because the Peaks are nice in the sunshine, is IMHO way harder, but it's still possible for them to interpret that it is a/ allowed and b/ necessary for say their mental health. I'm not saying they'd be right....just that they could interpret it that way and make a case.
Just because you disagree doesn't make you right or them a dick. You just have different opinions, and if we've learnt nothing since June 2016, we should have learned that ganging up on folk and calling them dicks doesn't change their minds.
Kelvin - pointing out issues with the new law doesn't mean that we are going to act outside the spirit they were drafted - in fact it is useful to highlight the problems so it can be addressed before it becomes a major issue for the police.
I'll say this one last time then step away - the guidelines the NPCC are drawing up will really help as it will clearly define the detail of the law and the approach to police.
Everyone can then stop arguing about whether it's legal to drive to exercise or not etc etc. My view is that it isn't legal and certainly outside the spirit of the regs, but it really isn't clear and that lack of clarity is really unhelpful for everyone
I tend towards travelling unnecessarily is being a dick.
social shaming? Personally I don't think many people are hopping into their cars or onto buses/trains to make "unnecessary journeys". It was reported today that the motorway networks have never been quieter. As many folk have pointed out, what's more risky, making a solo car journey to a remote location, or walking in a park with hundreds of others?
Northumbria police are pretty clear on it.
“Exercise should take place around the immediate area of where you live so we can all help mitigate against the spread of the infection. People should not be travelling away from their home to carry this out.
social shaming? Personally I don’t think many people are hopping into their cars or onto buses/trains to make “unnecessary journeys”. It was reported today that the motorway networks have never been quieter. As many folk have pointed out, what’s more risky, making a solo car journey to a remote location, or walking in a park with hundreds of others?
No not now the Police are checking areas and reasons why are people are there. The roads are quite as people are working from home, out of a job or not travelling unnecessarily. It’s not just a case of what’s worse just stop travelling unnecessarily it’s that simple.
I’ll say this one last time then step away – the guidelines the NPCC are drawing up will really help as it will clearly define the detail of the law and the approach to police.
If the NPCC are defining the detail of the law things really have gone wrong!
I tend towards the idea that questioning those in power (even in extraordinary circumstances) does not make one necessarily “a dick”
In times of national crisis I think it does.
Christ, in WW2 some newspapers were banned for undermining the governments position. It isn't democracy but it was the right decision. Once the war was over everything went back to normal as it will in this case.
I don’t think many people are hopping into their cars or onto buses/trains to make “unnecessary journeys”
They absolutely were. The Police have helped get the message out there not to. Most people have modified their behaviour. Well done the Police.
This thing is going to be damaging enough to society without people in power misusing that power. Well done to Lord Sumption for pointing that out.
Christ, in WW2 some newspapers were banned for undermining the governments position
such as?
I think you'll find in fact that most newspaper in the 30's and 40's were (like today) owned by individuals and weren't shy of using them to express their own positions and attempts at political influence. You only need look at the Express, and the News of World who were hugely critical of Chamberlains running of the war effort in the "Bore war"
The legislation you keep quoting contradicts the point you are trying to make. It explicitly says you CAN leave home to exercise and does NOT say you can’t travel to do it.
It shouldn't have to... Common sense should tell you that. This isn't a video game where you just go back to the last saved point.
If you get it and die, that's it mate, you're dead, gone. Or your parents, friends, family, sons, daughters, aunts, all of them, most could be infected by some random idiot who decided to head outside their normal local circle and infects 1-2 by chance, who infect another 10... and someone you love dies unnecessarily.
I'm shocked people can't see this
I don’t care if anyone sensibilities got offended by it.
I guess when the Taliban blew up those ancient buddhist monuments they had the same sort of sentiment.
Christ, in WW2 some newspapers were banned for undermining the governments position. It isn’t democracy but it was the right decision. Once the war was over everything went back to normal as it will in this case.
You're really comparing a military situation like WW2 with a foreign power actively doing what it could to defeat its enemies, and a completely civil medical emergency? The police need emergency powers, I don't think anyone here is saying that's wrong, but equally those powers should be limited and not freely interpreted by individual police officers. Given the way the anti-terrorist legislation has been used to justify actions that have little to do with terrorism I think it's perfectly reasonable that people should be vigilant and critical when they're overstepped.
Everyone can then stop arguing about whether it’s legal to drive to exercise or not etc etc. My view is that it isn’t legal and certainly outside the spirit of the regs, but it really isn’t clear and that lack of clarity is really unhelpful for everyone
I'd agree. However, these rules (if ever challenged) are going to be interpreted by a judge. The intention behind these rules is 100pc clear and the judge will take that into account when he decides what 'need' means.
Having said all that who on earth is going to go to refuse the fixed penalty go to court and then appeal to clarify the law? By the time that happens the crisis will be over would the government even contest it?
So AFAIC no judge will ever decide that driving to exercise meets the "need" test for 'normal' people and that interpretation will never be challenged.
should be limited
They are *very* strictly time limited.
It’s not just a case of what’s worse just stop travelling unnecessarily it’s that simple.
You would make an excellent politician, don't answer the question asked, answer the one you want. 🙂
I’m shocked people can’t see this
The overwhelming majority do see that. The ones not following the rules now are a minority.
I am hugely supportive of the police in general and they have been dealt a shitty hand of cards here in trying to police a piece of woolly legislation. However the principle of policing by consent is so important that real damage could be done, long term to the public's relationship with them, if they get it wrong. To me it comes down to this. No one should be arrested, fined, publically shamed in drone footage etc unless they have broken a law which has been passed by parliament. Not broken "guidelines", not gone against the whims of a cabinet minister, local council or chief constable but broken the law. If the law needs to be re-drafted because it's unclear then so be it, but the idea of the police imposing politician's or chief constables edicts without legislation is seriously wrong. It is not the police's job to "shame" people, it's their job to uphold the law. Most are getting it right, but imo Derbyshire massively overstepped the mark and are rightly getting flak for it, not least from fellow cops.
If the NPCC are defining the detail of the law things really have gone wrong!
You do realise NPCC employ solicitors and instruct Counsel so quite often define details of law and a suitable approach for their members? In the current absence of effective timely judiciary who else do you expect to do this?
Christ, in WW2 some newspapers were banned for undermining the governments position.
such as?
Morning Star:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper)
Apparently... my neighbour was stopped in his car by the police yesterday, when asked where he was going his reply was "shopping", they asked to see his shopping list and shopping bags, he had neither, they apparently told him to go home or he would be fined.
I say apparently as I wasn't there and he can be somewhat belligerent.
Is clarity really needed for anyone other than self righteous dicks?
The 'rule' for minimising travel when not essential is basic common sense, as it reduces the possibility of transmission. End of. Bending, or stretching the rules or guidance because you think you are special, is not big or clever.
TBH I find it highly amusing that an Eton educated Tory is being quoted to try to undermine Police actions and justify the idea that we can all hop in our cars and bugger off to the countryside!
Northumbria police are pretty clear on THEIR INTERPRETATION OF it.
FTFY
I guess when the Taliban blew up those ancient buddhist monuments they had the same sort of sentiment.
Obviously that's exactly what I meant.
Some people like to take an argumentative position for the sheer hell of it don't they?
"Take an argumentative position" was not my first choice of words, obviously.
The ‘rule’ for minimising travel when not essential
To avoid any doubt, what's your interpretation of minimise and essential?
The regs look a bit confusing to me ...
It says no leaving the hous except for essential etc etc.
It then goes on to day no public gatherings of more than 2 people.
So case in point, after doing some shopping last sunday (essential) my ex dropped our shared dog off with me in the car park. 2 min exchange. (non essential but not breaking the 'more than 2 people gathering in public' rule.
Offence or not?
You do realise NPCC employ solicitors and instruct Counsel so quite often define details of law and a suitable approach for their members? In the current absence of effective timely judiciary who else do you expect to do this?
I imagine they define their interpretation of the law, which can then be challenged in court. And poorly-defined laws allow them lots of leeway. Given, as you point out, there's a "current abscence of effective timely judiciary" I'd say it's more important than ever that the press and the public maintain a close eye on this interpretation, and if necessary raise a critical voice.
As a cop if I may offer a point of view.
For a fair number of law abiding folk, this is the first time they have had contact with the Police.
Normal law abiding folk have been told "nope, you can't do that, its very very naughty..."
So poor old Mrs Miggins goes out and gets stopped by the fuzz. She gets questioned by a very stern officer and told to only get the essentials.
Mrs Miggins feels upset as she feels she has done nothing wrong, and feels upset that the nasty brute of an officer had spoken to her sternly. Oh dear!!! She gets home and writes a letter to the Daily Mail!!
Normal law abiding folk don't like being told what to do or how to behave.
What has happened is unprecedented, and the world has had to respond to an unusual and challenging situation.
Unfortunately, the normal law abiding folk didn't think they would be effected and tried to carry on as normal.
Unfortunately they couldn't, so the nasty stern Police Officers had to stop them going about their normal daily lives for a few weeks.
The Police had to do it, because imagine what would happen if the military did it, thus allowing the Police to continue to deal with all the normal rubbish we have to deal with. (although Friday nights have never been so Quiet!!)
So give us a bit of credit for going out there, without any PPE and continuing to deal with the drug dealers, criminals and Mrs Miggins of the world, whilst each night coming home and wondering if the gobsh~~ who spat on me might just have passed something nasty over before I went home.
The "two people gathering" rule confused me as well, as it is specifically separate to household members.
So it implies you CAN meet a friend for a chat or whatever, which is contrary to the main guidance.
I've tried not to pick holes otherwise but that bit really sticks out.
+1 for blokeuptheroad.
The principle of policing by consent is massively important.
People shouldn't be dicks. Most aren't.
Police shouldn't be dicks. Most aren't.
The dyeing water stunt is not impressive and I'm not convinced about using drones for shaming either.
The “two people gathering” rule confused me as well, as it is specifically separate to household members.
Yep I interpreted that as I could walk dog, mrs take boy for run/ride but all 3 couldnt run/ride together. Seems most didnt see it this way.
People not letting the facts on the water dye story, as a couple of us have already tried to point out, get in the way.
Well said, monkeysfeet.
they asked to see his shopping list and shopping bags, he had neither, they apparently told him to go home or he would be fined.
Nah, that's bollocks. Unless it was the eco-police having a go coz he wasn't reusing his shopping bags.
When it all shakes down, you can see on this thread and thousands of others that the advice is "Stay Home"
And everyone seems to think that pushing the definition of this is them being heroic for stopping the UK becoming a police state
Other than claims of police dying lakes and apparent neighbour stories do we have any other proof of heavy handiness?
Monkeyfeet keep safe, chin up and thank you.
People not letting the facts on the water dye story
You also need to let the cops know about the "facts"
In a Facebook post Buxton safer neighbourhood policing team said: 'This is due to the picturesque location and the lovely weather (for once) in Buxton. However, the location is dangerous and this type of gathering is in contravention of the current instruction of the UK Government 'With this in mind, we have attended the location this morning and used water dye to make the water look less appealing.'
The police are equally unused to trying to enforce these kinds of powers as we are living under them. By all means criticise them if they are obviously acting in bad faith, but, like the rest of us, the vast majority of them are trying to do the right thing under difficult circumstances.
When you introduce legislation without consultation or Parliamentary debate, overnight, chances are it will be poorly phrased, contain loopholes or introduce restrictions which go beyond the scope of what was intended. It will be refined over time, guidance will be issued, and police resources focused at those areas which are likely to cause greatest public nuisance.
In the meantime, have patience with what was already a very thinly-stretched police service.
