A discussion on what's really allowed during lockdown

[OnTheEdgeOfTheNight]

The discussion linked below is about the English version of the bill. You may be surprised to see how the actual wording varies from what people believe

mobile.twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1243196424445136896

Then we get to freedom of movement restrictions. This is quite a bit more detailed than, and different to, PM's statement. Big difference I spotted is there is no restriction on number of times you can do each thing lawfully. You just need a "reasonable excuse" as defined

The Scottish legislation is here
www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/103/pdfs/ssi_20200103_en.pdf

I haven't checked Ni and Wales

Its Boris fault. He does not want to be criticized so kept it vague.

Yet another example of people who can't read.

The act permits you to leave home to 'purchase basic necessities such as food'

So all food, of all types is already deemed to be a necessity, it's defined in the act.

There's nothing to restrict the type of food you are buying, you could have a trolley full of caviar and it would still be ok.

I Think a lot of people are misinterpreting the wording as saying something like 'to purchase basic/necessary food only' which it doesn't say at all.

It's a subtle difference, but wording is so important when interpreting legal texts, it can make such a difference to meaning, as in this case.

It's not vague Wooway, all law is like this.

If something is not specifically prohibited by law, then you are allowed to do it.

E.g Driving to exercise is not prohibited by the act, so you are allowed to do it.

The danger of police over reach on this shouldn’t be underestimated. There’s a reason we don't generally allow the police to make up their own laws.

Totally agree with this. Things have taken a very sinister turn the last few days. The idea that people going about perfectly reasonable and legal business are being stopped and questioned is terrifying. Most people support the lockdown, they don’t want to get ill, and they don’t want vulnerable family members to die.

The police (and to a slightly lesser extent social workers) are real outliers when you look at the amount of power they wield vs. The level of education required to hold the position.

Ive always found this troubling, putting discretionary power in the hands of police like this is a terrible idea, it's the rule of man, not the rule of law.

What worries me is how many posters are happy to hear that a Police Officer told someone they couldn't sit down in a park and must keep walking.

@NikeDeLaSwoosh is right and everything else is wrong.

You can lawfully:

• leave home in the morning to walk your dog
• leave home again to buy a single packet of crisps
• leave home again the same day to buy a keg of beer
• leave home again to walk your dog again
• leave home to go to Halfords to buy some oil for your car or bicycle and in the process pick up a new car stereo, a lay-z spa, and some chrome hub caps for your Vauxhall Corsa.
• leave home again for a 100 mile bike ride

You might be a bit tired after all that lot but it's entirely lawful.

The law says you must stay home unless you have a reasonable excuse to leave. Exercise is an absolute excuse with no qualification. Food is an absolute excuse with no qualification. Pet food, flea powder etc. is another absolute excuse. Obtaining 'supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household' is another excuse.

If you have a 'reasonable excuse' then your journey is lawful. Sitting on a bench in the park and having a picnic on the way back from your lawful journey to buy flea powder for Foo-Foo is then lawful.

The police are allowed to ask people why they have left home. If they have a reasonable excuse as defined above (any food for example) then that's the end of the conversation. The police have no role in telling people they can't buy certain products (which is something that has been happening) as part of that trip, they have on task, which is establishing whether leaving the home was with reasonable excuse (as defined in law) or not.

@Flaxmeadow where does the legislation say that? I haven’t seen anything conferring law making powers on police officers. I think you might be confused. The legislation permits people to leave their homes with reasonable excuse. Without further provision one must assume that ‘reasonable excuse’ is an objective measure as opposed to a police officers opinion. I’m pretty sure the only type of individual that has the discretion to determine what this means is a judge. Police officers can only enforce the law.

@littlebitwooway he didn’t write the legislation himself. At any rate the act is fairly clear (as far as acts go), what you mean is that it’s not exhaustive, this is for practical reasons and in order to satisfy justice. If they were to include an exhaustive list of reasonable excuses to leave your house they’d probably still be writing.
Most people just don’t know how to read legislation and, understandably, the people writing the legislation haven’t tried to spell it out for lay persons. Maybe the mumsnet tees Pitt here with a legal education should get together and write a lay persons guide to the new legislation? Or even a lay person guide to reading legislation including a glossary of key terms.

The police in my county have stated yesterday that driving to exercise is not permitted. I can understand why they have done this - much of the county is highly urban pockets surrounded by rural countryside that attracts a fair number of walkers all year round. Unfortunately now it is attracting crowds of people in large groups meeting up, who want to stay and picnic, all touching gates and stiles, some lighting bbqs etc.
We’d normally be up one of those hills every weekend. We can see them in the distance and it’s so depressing to think of them as now out of reach. But out of reach they have to be, because people acted like twats and put other people in danger by going there.

The point is that the police have no authority to ban driving to exercise.

This is what is so troubling to me, so few people understand what law is, how it works, who has the authority to make it.

They wouldn’t bother doing it if they didn’t have to. Because twats.
I don’t really care if it’s not gone through 5 years of legislation to pass because doing it is putting people’s lives in danger. Probably not the lives of the people doing it, either, unfortunately, because I wouldn’t be bothered if they got the natural consequence of their risky behaviour.
I’ve got friends who live in some beautiful places, who can walk out their door and straight onto open countryside. That’s just the way it is, they are lucky.

Gosh, what a chilling post @ProfessorHasturLaVista

Police simply don't have the power to act in this way.

Any restriction on our freedoms must go through the usual process - how awful that people don't get why this is so important.

The problem is, most people are so ignorant that they don't understand this, so can't hold the authorities to account.

Ok DC let’s wait for it to go through the usual channels. We’ll let arseholes spread this thing further and further. As long as I can have my god given right to walk up Rivington Pike.

Next year when I’m heading off for a day in the Lakes this will be a distant memory. I won’t be able to do that if I’m dead.

It is intended to spread all throughout the country...

The whole point of social distancing is to slow the spread to a controlled pace, not to somehow stop you catching it.

I know it’s to slow the spread. So are the restrictions on where I go and how often and by what means. Unfortunately some people need it spelling out to them in words of one syllable as they pile into the car with a disposable bbq to meet their mates on the moors or at the nature reserve. I wish they weren’t that thick but they are, so the police have had to react to that quickly, especially as this spring has decided to be bright and relatively warm rather than its usual drizzly self.

If you don't like the law, then you need to lobby for it to be changed.

Not just give arbitrary power to the (unelected) police.

That's not how law is made in this country.

We don’t have time to lobby for change.
Believe me, I haven’t always followed the letter of the Law in my life. I’ve ignored bits of it I didn’t agree with, particularly in my teens and twenties. Repercussions of that stopped with me, though. That’s not the case with Covid 19. It doesn’t give a shit if free movement is enshrined in the Law and needs to be debated and changes passed.

Like I said, if only the people still meeting up in groups got it then I wouldn’t care. They’ve assessed the risk and accepted it.
They are going to be in the supermarkets and hospitals, however. Possibly their children in the schools where I as a key worker am spending time. So their risk is now my risk, because they got all arsey about staying at home. Hope the police do pull them over and fine them. They can argue the toss about the Lawfullness of the fine and being sent back home at their leisure.

We don’t have time to lobby for change

Then you'll just have to suck it up as it is.

Do you not see the irony of your attitude?

People looking for ways to sidestep the the current restrictions are 'thick', but you looking for ways to circumvent the actual legislative process is somehow perfectly ok?

I’m not looking for ways to circumnavigate anything. I’m doing what I’m allowed to do as it slows the spread.
I’d rather not have the army at the end of my street so police stopping entitled twats meeting up with their friends is absolutely fine by me right now.
An ambulance called to a knobhead who has wrapped his car round a fence on a moorland road is an ambulance that can’t respond to someone who has the reached the point with Covid19 where they can’t breathe. I can get all aerated about my civil liberties being eroded or I can accept these are extraordinary times needing extraordinary procedures for us all.

Yes you are, you are wanting Police to unlawfully overstep the bounds of their authority because you disagree with the legislation that has been passed and received Royal Assent.

What is that if not attempting to circumvent the whole principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty?

I want the police to protect us as best they can. They’ve looked at the situation in my area, seen the behaviour that is putting other people at risk and reacted to it. I am fine with that. They won’t be stopping anyone going anywhere when all this is over.

Do you have an opinion on the unnecessary diversion of emergency resources to people who can’t do what they are asked for the good of everyone else? Or is it all just theoretical to you? Maybe that’s the difference in our outlook. It’s not theoretical to me that people will die if other people carry on doing what they damn well please.

The police are no more allowed to make up law that people are to congregate for BBQs.

Should people (police included) obey the law, or not?

You can't have it both ways.

Re your second post -

Its not up to you though, is it?

Its up to parliament, which has legislated.

So you don't like it? Tough.