to think Derbyshire police need to read the LAW and understand that you can't fine people when they are not breaking it

[chomalungma]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

Surrounded by police, treated like a criminal for driving 5 miles to a beauty spot for a walk.

It is not illegal to drive to exercise.

Sorry not rtft but this comment is excellent

"And that’s bollocks about a drink being a picnic. If a drink is a picnic then a beer is a substantial meal, isn’t it?"

Lolz. It's a fucking joke. The people getting all up on their high horse are absolutely baffling me. It's like you all want rule to stick to. How are they breaking the law? Literally how?

Also stop acting like myself and other who are pointing out this isn't illegal, stop acting like we're all anti vax covid truthers.

Are people still leaving the country to go on holiday? If so, how?!

So basically this is a police bashing thread, based on information/misinformation quoted to a paper? They can challenge the ticket if they don't feel there were grounds, but non of us were there so we don't actually know anything.
Normally the police avoid dishing out tickets to a ridiculous degree, asking people to disperse several times first.

There are two wrongs here, but as ever the focus is on government/police bashing as well as 'I can do what I like for the sake of my mental health'.

If those women, hadn't been there in the first place the police would not have got involved, rightly or wrongly.

Just because someone has a car, doesn't mean they can take the mick and drive 5, 10, 20 miles or more for exercise.

No, just because they wanted a nice view, and the others who had to get together with friends and relatives at Christmas or those that can't hack it having to home school their own child and must send them into school, is becoming rediculous.

It seems everyone is special, exceptional. Then the same people complain about being in constant lockdowns.

This post has made me think about the impact on policing in the future post covid.

Most of us here on MN are law abiding citizens with respect for the police and recognise they are doing a difficult job. Under normal circumstances if stopped by the police we would be polite and co operative and not confrontational, after all it's not in your interest to be confrontational.

However a heavy handed approach by the police on covid restrictions will seriously damage that respect and co operative attitude amongst ordinary citizens causing long term difficulties to policing in what will be a more divided and seriously pissed off country post covid.

Lawyers - or English specialists again

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 [F3paragraph 17], for—

(i)P or for those in the same household,

(ii)vulnerable persons [F4or persons who have a disability], or

(iii)persons in the same household as a vulnerable person [F5or 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,

If I was reading this properly,

I am allowed to take exercise alone, with one or more members of my household or in a public outdoor space, with one other member of a household who is not a member of my household.

Am I allowed to exercise alone? (If you read this paragragh and sub paragraphs properly)

I was just looking at pictures in The Evening Standard of people queueing - queueing - to walk up Snowdon.

In isolation a couple of people going for walk seems reasonable, but if there are thousands of people cheek by jowl at that same spot... not so reasonable to drive there.

@chomalungma I would imagine that if one was found to be illegal it would be considered never to have existed.

However, if you were issued with several illegal ones in a short space of time you could end up with quite a bill, and who knows how long it would take to get the notices quashed?

Also note - having a fixed penalty notice can have adverse effects... on other areas. For example, someone with several fixed penalty notices could have an application for citizenship refused as part of the 'good character' requirement. This is from the citizenship guidance:

Fixed Penalty Notices (such as speeding or parking tickets) do not form part of a person’s criminal record and will not be considered in the caseworker’s assessment of character unless either:

• the person has failed to pay and there were criminal proceedings as a result; or

• the person has received numerous fixed penalty notices.

[quote Horizons83]@JamesMiddletonsMarshmallows

Have you had a chance to read the legislation yet? What do you think?[/quote]
I haven't but fair enough if that's what it said I believe you quoted it correctly. I shall now eat this delicious humble pie

West Mercia Police just released a statement on Twitter threatening anyway throwing a snowball with a £200 fine.

If those women, hadn't been there in the first place the police would not have got involved, rightly or wrongl

Thats sails a little close to victim blaming to me. They were there perfectly legally - how is it their fault that some cunty police officers decided to abuse their power that day?

@1dayatatime in fairness, they haven't threatened anything - sounds like a bunch of tons frightening elderly and vulnerable people. Now THEY would deserve a £200 fine, that's harrasment in my eyes

@Gettinggrumpier - your second paragraph is really not a good argument. They weren't breaking the law, but because they were in a position for police to treat them wrongly as though they had broken the law, they basically were at fault as though they had broken the law. To summarise.

The rest is pretty bad too. Can't believe people are still arguing that it's justifiable to treat people as criminals when they factually are not because we don't personally agree with their behaviour.

If those women, hadn't been there in the first place the police would not have got involved, rightly or wrongly

That sounds incredibly like victim blaming to me. The simple truth is thet were not breaking the law so they should not have been fined. Saying they were just as wrong as the police who handed out a fine when no crime had been committed is very unreasonable.

@ComDummings

The police are dickheads tbh

Who would you be calling if your house was broken into, your child adducted or abused?

Just remember without the Police, we'd have all the child rapists and serial killers on the streets. Peter Sutcliffe would've just continued. Moira Hindley etc etc. All the murderers and paedophiles out there would be free to continue....

Exactly @Same4Walls that's like saying "Well if George Flloyd hadn't been out looking dodgy he wouldn't have been killed"

For clarity: NOT comparing the situations. It's an analogy

If those women, hadn't been there in the first place the police would not have got involved, rightly or wrongly

They were legally allowed to be there!

If the police fined you for something legal, would you really think “it’s my fault, if I hadn’t been wearing a red hat they wouldn’t have fined me for wearing a red hat”, for example?

YADNBU

I haven't but fair enough if that's what it said I believe you quoted it correctly. I shall now eat this delicious humble pie

No worries. I just don't like my credentials as an interpreter of legislation being questioned! Given that it's my profession!

@CostaDelCovid my SIL did call the police when her (now ex) boyfriend kicked her in her crotch as she was holding their 2yo DD during an argument and wouldn't hand her over. She fell into the stairgate at which point he grabbed their DD and left the house.

She and the police, texted him to say she had, and he came back because it turns out he'd hidden drugs in their kitchen cupboard.

They came, 2 female officers, and told her she was over-reacting, she should have handed her over to the her boyfriend as "she's his daughter too". They then told the (very good looking and charming) boyfriend that if he wanted her could take his DD to the other side of the country if he wanted and there's nothing SIL could do.

She left his after that but he used that threat of "I will take her, I'm allowed, those police said and there's nothing you can do" to abuse and manipulate the her for years. I can't tell you the hell she's been through.

Her story is not unusual for abused for women. In fact it's the norm.

So many of us don't really buy the "what about when you need the police line".

Oh and 99% of rapists are in the street. Yay police

@Horizons83

I haven't but fair enough if that's what it said I believe you quoted it correctly. I shall now eat this delicious humble pie

No worries. I just don't like my credentials as an interpreter of legislation being questioned! Given that it's my profession!

I didn't realise that and I am suitably embarrassed. Apologies. Would you like a slice of my pie?

Peter Sutcliffe would've just continued.

He continued for too long because the police didn't care that someone was killing prostitutes.

[quote Byllis]@Gettinggrumpier - your second paragraph is really not a good argument. They weren't breaking the law, but because they were in a position for police to treat them wrongly as though they had broken the law, they basically were at fault as though they had broken the law. To summarise.

The rest is pretty bad too. Can't believe people are still arguing that it's justifiable to treat people as criminals when they factually are not because we don't personally agree with their behaviour.[/quote]
The main message in lockdown is to stay at home and only go out for essential reasons. Driving out of your local area for exercise is not within the spirit of the law. The time spent driving could have been used more profitably, by using their legs and walking/exercising where the live.

Also, it's not about whether I agree or not. It is about the consequences. If they can do what they like, then surely everyone can.

The irony is that so many people cite South Korea, Taiwan etc as a beacon of excellence in controlling COVID, without acknowledging that their measures and police enforcement powers are a lot more draconian than here in the UK. But then again, most of their population are more compliant, amenable, think of the greater good and don't constantly think how to bend the rules. Maybe because they have it drilled into them more that actions have consequences, not to be selfish and have a keener sense of civic responsibility. Something is is rapidly in decline here.