Caving under lockdown 3.0 (Split from Re: CNCC updated advice)

[Bob Mehew]

Which bit of my quote isn't included Bob? I've followed you link and all the text I quoted appears identical (albeit your link goes to the whole of the legislation, and therefore the note at the top differs in that it relates to the whole legislation, not just Schedule 3A)

screen shot from the link on Schedule 3A

 

[pwhole]

I had to walk through a gang of coppers (4) and whoever they were sorting out (4) on my road a couple of hours ago earlier - none of them wearing masks, all guffawing loudly and blocking the pavement. So me and the other pedestrians all had to hold our breath and get our heads down as we went through the phalanx, as none of them attempted to move out of our way. They're sharing cars with no masks on 

In other news, I walked three miles to some woods to take some photos this afternoon and then walked back again. Nothing else happened.

 

[mikem]

From Lancashire telegraph:

Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister at Doherty Street Chambers, described the latest rules as ?basically all of England now in Tier 4 and Tier 4 is amended but not by a huge amount?.

But Mr Wagner, who has been tracking changes in coronavirus laws since the start of the pandemic and deciphering legalese for the public, said on Twitter: ?This really is a terrible way to make laws on the fly ? who can possibly understand it?!?
...
Neither time nor geographical limits on outdoor exercise which have been cited in Government guidance are mentioned in the law, Mr Wagner said. This is also the case for guidance on travel between areas.

 

[PeteHall]

I had to walk through a gang of coppers (4) and whoever they were sorting out (4) on my road a couple of hours ago earlier - none of them wearing masks

They are presumably taking advantage of their legal exemption:

PART 2
Relevant place: requirement to wear a face covering​

Requirement to wear a face covering whilst entering or remaining within a relevant place
3.?(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.

(2) Subject to (2A), the requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply?

    (a)to a child who is under the age of 11;
    (b)to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment;
    (c)to any other person providing services in the relevant place under arrangements made with the [F2person responsible for the relevant place];
    (d)to an employee of an operator of a public transport service acting in the course of their employment;
    (e)to a person who enters or is within a transport hub in a vehicle (other than a vehicle being used for the provision of a public transport service);
    (f)to a constable or police community support officer acting in the course of their duty;
    (g)to an emergency responder (other than a constable) acting in their capacity as an emergency responder;
    (h)to a relevant official acting in the course of their employment or their duties [F3;
    (i)to an elite sportsperson undertaking training or taking part in a competition;
    (j)to a coach of an elite sportsperson acting in the course of their employment or in the course of providing their services;
    (k)to a referee acting in the course of their employment or in the course of providing their services;
    (l)to a professional dancer undertaking training or taking part in a competition;
    (m)to a professional choreographer acting in the course of their employment or in the course of providing their services;
    to a pupil at a religious school who is under the age of 19 and is undertaking education or training in a place of worship where such education or training forms part of the curriculum of the religious school] [F4;
    (o)to a performer performing in the course of their employment or in the course of providing their services.]

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/791/part/2

 

[PeteHall]

From Lancashire telegraph:

Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister at Doherty Street Chambers, described the latest rules as ?basically all of England now in Tier 4 and Tier 4 is amended but not by a huge amount?.

But Mr Wagner, who has been tracking changes in coronavirus laws since the start of the pandemic and deciphering legalese for the public, said on Twitter: ?This really is a terrible way to make laws on the fly ? who can possibly understand it?!?
...
Neither time nor geographical limits on outdoor exercise which have been cited in Government guidance are mentioned in the law, Mr Wagner said. This is also the case for guidance on travel between areas.

Pretty much what I said earlier, glad someone who knows something about these things agrees with my armchair assessment 

 

[mikem]

Your problem comes in first sentence of schedule 3A:

Restrictions on leaving 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.

As I've said elsewhere (along with aardgoose) - reasonable has a legal meaning as to what a reasonable person might be expected to do, not what you think is reasonable...

 

[PeteHall]

reasonable has a legal meaning as to what a reasonable person might be expected to do, not what you think is reasonable...

What is reasonable is also defined in the legislation.

Exceptions: leaving home
2.?(1) These are the exceptions referred to in paragraph 1.
Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes
(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (?P?) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (?P?s home?)?
    (a)to buy goods or obtain services from any business or service listed in paragraph 17, for?
          (i)P or for those in the same household,
          (ii)vulnerable persons or persons who have a disability, or
          (iii)persons in the same household as a vulnerable person or a person who has a disability;
    (b)to obtain money from or deposit money with any business listed in paragraph 17(k) or (l) of this Schedule;
    (c)to take exercise outside?
          (i)alone,
          (ii)with?
              (aa)one or more members of their household, their linked household, or
              (bb)where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or
          (iii)in a public outdoor place, with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household or their linked childcare household,
        and sub-paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph;

 

[mikem]

No, it purposely isn't precisely defined, so police / courts can use discretion based on the guidance (which is what the government consider to be reasonable). I do think a lot of fines will end up being reimbursed after things calm down.

 

[MarkS]

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

Derbyshire Police said in a statement: "Driving to a location - where exercise could easily have been taken closer to a person's home - is clearly not in the spirit of the national effort to reduce our travel, reduce the possible spread of the disease and reduce the number of deaths."

 

[mikem]

Government guidance is also much easier to adjust than legislation, so they are able to make changes by keeping it woolly.

 

[2xw]

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

Derbyshire Police said in a statement: "Driving to a location - where exercise could easily have been taken closer to a person's home - is clearly not in the spirit of the national effort to reduce our travel, reduce the possible spread of the disease and reduce the number of deaths."

Another fpn that they'll back down on - Derbyshire police have been somewhat shite throughout the whole thing.

In some ways I feel sorry for the police, imagine regularly dealing with criminals then the week after everyone is a criminal for going for a walk. Doesn't really excuse Derbyshire for following dog walkers with drones I suppose.

 

[pwhole]

It seems that driving is probably the problem. No police have ever stopped me - I haven't even seen any, but then I get the bus and the police generally don't. More pertinently, the Sheffield to Castleton bus is running as normal, and has been throughout the pandemic. I know for a fact that barely any Sheffield residents currently work in Castleton - or vice versa. So what's the bus for exactly, if people can't use it? It would save a lot of money to just cancel it at the moment. But they won't.

 

[mikem]

Castleton folk need to be able to get to the big suoermarkets (& I know most of them have cars, but do they all?)

 

[pwhole]

You must be joking. On the bus? Haha. In the forty-plus years I've been getting that bus I have never ever seen anyone 'go shopping' in Sheffield. They all drive there. Or Morrison's at Buxton.

 

[mikem]

That may be so, but they are obliged to provide the service.

Another fpn that they'll back down on - Derbyshire police have been somewhat shite throughout the whole thing.

It is exactly what the government guidance says...

 

[Fjell]

It seems that driving is probably the problem. No police have ever stopped me - I haven't even seen any, but then I get the bus and the police generally don't. More pertinently, the Sheffield to Castleton bus is running as normal, and has been throughout the pandemic. I know for a fact that barely any Sheffield residents currently work in Castleton - or vice versa. So what's the bus for exactly, if people can't use it? It would save a lot of money to just cancel it at the moment. But they won't.

The bus is for pensioners who get it for free. Except most are hiding, so they are currently empty round here. The only bus that gets used is the one that collects all the kids for college in the morning and evening.

With the pubs shut and the courts jammed up, there is nothing for the police to do in rural areas. So the the leadership starts trying to be creative, and it?s not an area of strength.

 

[Oceanrower]

That may be so, but they are obliged to provide the service.

Another fpn that they'll back down on - Derbyshire police have been somewhat shite throughout the whole thing.

It is exactly what the government guidance says...

The police aren't there to enforce guidance. They're there to enforce legislation.

 

[aardgoose]

The problem for the police is where you draw the line, because the situation for someone in a small village without shops is very different to someone in a large town. It's hard making rigid laws that work for all, hence the flex of reasonableness.

And you get idiots like these, clearly in the wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55571587

and the three cars that drove from London to the Peaks to go walking, and then had a road accident in Bamford last Monday.

And also the walkers etc stuck in snow all over the peak last week.

 

[mikem]

The police aren't there to enforce guidance. They're there to enforce legislation.

The guidance is what the government considers reasonable, so it can be considered legislation until proven otherwise in court.

 

[NeilC]

The police aren't there to enforce guidance. They're there to enforce legislation.

The guidance is what the government considers reasonable, so it can be considered legislation until proven otherwise in court.

That's true up to a point e.g. if the legislation stated that it was permitted to drive a 'reasonable' distance, the courts could use the guidance to determine the precise definition of 'reasonable.'  However, the legislation is completely silent on the matter of travel.  It simply states that one must have a 'reasonable excuse' to leave home, and goes on to state that exercise is one such. In this instance therefore, it's clear that the two women in question had done nothing wrong legally.