Since we'll all be locked in our houses, Coronavirus

According to the local (West) news, police have been prowling the M5 service areas questioning people's journeys and in some cases sending them back.

Here are the emergency regulations, and I can find nothing in them giving the police the powers to make that kind of decision:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents/made

(update: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/introduction/made)

I'm not anti-police or anti-regulation, but if I decide a journey is essential, who are they to decide otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Black Hole said:
I'm not anti-police or anti-regulation, but if I decide a journey is essential, who are they to decide otherwise?
Click to expand...
They presumably have to make a judgment on whether the journey would be found essential if tested in court.. The list of reasons in the legislation is non-exhaustive, I know, but some people are definitely taking the piss.
 
af123 said:
They presumably have to make a judgment on whether the journey would be found essential if tested in court
Click to expand...
Show me where the regulations ban any kind of journey. My reading of them is that they cover measures that can be taken to impound infected people or people arriving from outside the country. Testing it in court is irrelevant.
 
Black Hole said:
Show me where the regulations ban any kind of journey. My reading of them is that they cover measures that can be taken to impound infected people or people arriving from outside the country. Testing it in court is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I suspect they are giving the people they 'recommend' go back home the option of being a test case. Maybe someone will take them up on it.

As af says, a lot of people are just trying it on - lets face it, it's not like you normally even see a policeman in the wild these days, let alone interact with one. (Where the heck are they all coming from?)
 
Last edited:
Aha! I wasn't aware of other new legislation being passed.

That is actually the legislation I thought I was looking up - I didn't spot the difference.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/introduction/made

The key point here is that there is nothing (in writing) restricting movements or methods of travel in order to pursue the permitted excuses for leaving your place of residence. If I wanted to go food shopping in Birmingham (say), it appears there's not a jot they could officially do about it.
 
Last edited:
Black Hole said:
If I wanted to go food shopping in Birmingham (say), it appears there's not a jot they could officially do about it.
Click to expand...
I suspect that if it was brought to court then it might not be deemed a "reasonable excuse" but until somebody tries it...
It's certainly against the spirit
 
Black Hole said:
The key point here is that there is nothing (in writing) restricting movements or methods of travel in order to pursue the permitted excuses for leaving your place of residence. If I wanted to go food shopping in Birmingham (say), it appears there's not a jot they could officially do about it.
Click to expand...
Coronavirus: Man fined for 240-mile round trip ‘to buy bread’ Some idiot from Nottingham got stopped by Leicestershire Police. He was speeding at 110mph, but was quizzed about why he was out. Shopping for bread in London was the excuse. Elsewhere I'd seen his further excuse was that the bread was cheaper in London! How much fuel did he use at 110mph? Unless he was buying the contents of a bakery, not enough to pay for the petrol. Reported for the speeding offence and given a £60 fine under Health Protection Regulations 2020.
MikeSh said:
it's not like you normally even see a policeman in the wild these days, let alone interact with one. (Where the heck are they all coming from?)
Click to expand...
Seen lots of them recently. I interacted with one, as stated earlier in this thread. A near neighbour had serious interaction with one. I hope they got told off or even a fine for allowing two or possibly three households to travel by car and mingle. Probably not though as a tent and some children appeared at the house. (If the children are related to the neighbour they would be grandchildren, so shouldn't be covered by the exemptions listed above)
 
I'm not saying some people are not being silly, but I am saying the powers to stop them being silly are more limited than the jobsworths seem to think.

Here's a case in point. I'm in Bristol today where I provide support for an elderly friend. We've been out for a walk and went to a local open space (on foot), where we saw this:

20200410_174103.png

The government have acknowledged it is OK to drive to a place for exercise or to walk the dog, and the regulations do not say you are not permitted to.

Then, during our walk in the open space, my friend needed a sit down so we sat on a bench for a bit, then a young female community support officer told us to move on. I said my friend needs a rest, and got a lecture how the bench could be full of germs and she had to move on families with young children so she was going to move us on too.

Either this is a lack of training, or she was trying to make her job simpler by applying a blunt instrument beyond her authority. I could have debated the exact wording of the provisions, but I figured it was easier to move on.

Going to Bristol the M4 was very quiet (quietest it's been), but nonetheless there was quite a smash where a car (Golf?) had hit the centre barrier. Using the empty road as a race track?
 
Last edited:
That sign is wrong anyway. The govt said you can drive 5 mins to get to an exercise area.

I'm beginning to think this 2m rule when outside is daft. They take every opportunity to make you take exercise near your home, so every man (plus dog) is on the pavements. (I wear high vis so I can be a bit safer when walking in the road). Letting people who can out into open areas would logically reduce the chance of spread on the local walkways. But either that sort of thinking is not possible in local authorities - or the 2m rule is bogus and they know it.
 
MikeSh said:
or the 2m rule is bogus and they know it
Click to expand...
The purpose of the 2m rule is to reduce the risk of being in somebody's sneeze or cough radius for droplet infection, but the sneeze or cough radius is bound to be more than 2m downwind.
 
MikeSh said:
Exactly. I try to take account of the wind, but most people can't even judge 2m, never mind understand aerosol dispersion.
Click to expand...
I might be underestimating 2m, but not to the point some people are. I'm getting a bit p'd off with people (cyclists on the pavement, runners) getting within 1m. Also getting a bit more exercise by keep crossing to the other side of the road to dodge as many people as possible. Even walked down the cycle track to avoid the cyclist on the pavement. On quiet roads even contemplated walking up the middle of the road. Haven't resorted to high-vis yet.
 
Last edited:
EEPhil said:
I was under the impression, possible wrongly, that the first time you try to use contactless you have to enter the PIN.
Click to expand...
My impression was wrong. Just used somebody else's card to pay for less than £8 goods - first time contactless - no PIN required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top