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

DCO are you following the 'guidelines'?

My biggest concern at the moment is getting my family through this in one piece.

Nothing else matters.

I just hope some of the idiots too selfish to care about others don't read your posts.

No, I'm not following 'guidelines' (Rule of Man)

I am following the Legislation (Rule of Law)

My biggest concern at the moment is getting my family through this in one piece.

Perhaps a bit off topic from this thread, but I actually see this as being a really selfish pov.

So your family survives this immediate crisis, but what about all the people who will die prematurely as a result of the recession the economic shutdown will cause?

Do you not care about them?

coke the poster you quote said "biggest concern" not only concern". You're misrepresenting her.

The poster stated:

Nothing else matters

That's pretty unequivocal IMO.

Sorry if I've misrepresented you! I only read your quote of her. Sorry - I've been too quick to leap on you. Urgh we're (me!) too stressed. Sorry

No worries, its a debate - challenging people's opinions is a good thing

DCO I was not shouting for lockdown very early for exactly this reason. It is of course a concern.

But the govt have obv decided that the best way to save lives now and long term is to implement these measures.

But by me following the guidelines then will I will help flatten the curve and hopefully restrictions can be lifted a little again which will be better for the economy in the long term rather than idiots who think they really need to have a party with friends or go for a long drive for their daily exercise.

We all have a social responsibility.

Yes, I think we are in agreement, I also agree that following the law is a good thing and I am doing it - to the letter.

The issue I have is when people wish to arbitrarily add additional restrictions, over and above those mandated by the law.

The law is deliberately loose so that society can continue to function on a limited level.

If parliament thought that driving to exercise, for example, should be banned, then they would have written that specific restriction into the Act.

If the restrictions need to be tightened, then that is the role of parliament, not Karen at No 42.

DCO there are some whi are going OTT. I actually feel we should be at the limit of how far we go.

I do not want us to copy France / Italy / Spain.

We are not going to stop it without a vaccine so we do need to do it in a controlled manner where there is the available capacity in the NHS so fewer lives are lost.

It still won't save everyone though so those most ar risk do need to really social distance themselves for an very long time (which is really tough).

@Flaxmeadow - but that's the conundrum- that puntbof milk may be 'essential' to that person..if the law enforcement deem it non essential, then it's a fine.

But, that's not how the law works. These are emergency powers brought in that result in a fine and at the worst, a court appearance, if one is issued a fine and refuses to pay. There are loopholes that can be argued, skillfully.

Were it the law, a judge deciding whether the point of milk was essential? The accuser, would have to prove the accused intentionally went out, to buy the point of milk, whether it was essential iwoyod be mitigation.

But, yes your argument carries weight as a non essential item.

The Act doesn't say anything at all about whether individual food items need to be 'necessary'!

All food falls under the heading of 'necessary'

There are no 'loopholes', that need to be 'argued'

Were it the law, a judge deciding whether the point of milk was essential? The accuser, would have to prove the accused intentionally went out, to buy the point of milk, whether it was essential iwoyod be mitigation

WTF?

Where are you getting this twaddle from? Where is there anything in the Act that says individual food items need to be 'essential'?

I think the police are being dicks, and people are going to have absolutely no respect for them after this.

The law is vague so that people can make their own decisions. If the police stop this then people will not cope with an extended lockdown. It is fairly basic behavioral modelling

I went to the garage this morning to get petrol and buy some cans of coke and crisps and chocolate. Essential so that our family of five inc three older teens can remain cheerful today and therefore cope with an extended lockdown.

@daisychain01 off licences are one of the designated business the govt has allowed to stay open. The only things we touched while we were there were the things we bought, and there was hand sanitiser provided at the door which we used. We paid contactless and of course washed our hands well when we arrived home. We didn't go out specifically to buy wine/beer. But the things we bought meant we actually had a really lovely evening and our minds, briefly, were distracted from all this.

What exactly did we do wrong?

Hand sanitiser and gloves to do the petrol. Hand sanitiser again before shop. Only touched what i bought .more bloody hand sanitiser when I got home. Washed my hands and the cans.

Its up to parliament, which has legislated

Not directly, the law was made by the Executive in form of Statutory Instrument, though the ultimate authority is the Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984, which was passed by Parliament and allows ministers to make regulations, so there is ultimate parliamentary sovereignty

It’s impossible to create one law that’s equally applicable to a congested city and a rural area.

So our family in the South West and Yorkshire continue to enjoy long country walks every day (seeing very few people) whilst those in busy cities either don’t go out or go out and almost inevitably see lots of people, all vying for the same limited green space or pavements.

I agree with social distancing and we’re practising it. But the fall out could well be civil unrest...lots of people living in cramped flats with little outside space, in close proximity to lots of neighbours and with no space to vent....lots of bored teens off school or people out of work, money worries, food worries...its all building up.

It’s great that lots of people are volunteering but there’s an undercurrent of seething resentment bubbling under the community feeling.

Last night in my normally quiet block of flats, and in the blocks/houses nearby, loads of people were playing music really loudly with windows open until very late. I'm not suggesting they were having parties with carloads of guests or anything - it was obviously those who might usually be at pubs/clubs trying to create something similar at home. Which of course is fine. But 3-6 months of loud music every weekend - which will get worse when the weather warms up and the pub moves into gardens - will wear a little thin.

We also had a mass brawl at the end of our street on Thursday night - nothing like that has ever happened before. About a dozen men, drunk and fighting.

As this goes on I do think the initial community spirit and goodwill will begin to peter out. It's already happening in Italy and they're only 3 weeks in.

@Absentwomen no, essentialness isn’t a defence. There can be no offence here where someone has left their home for essential reasons. If that scenario would end up in court (it would be called a judicial review) it would go like this:
Judge: sarcastic but professional version of ‘you stupid twit, of course buying milk is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of the act, it literally says that going to buy food is a reasonable excuse, milk is a food item’ followed by a finding that the police officer was acting ultra vires.

@Reginabambina - I love that.

@Absentwomen love the British judiciary. They and their thinly veiled digs at hapless counsel are a credit to the nation.

I am so relieved to read a few other PP who feel similarly concerned about the way that some police forces have been behaving in recent days. Almost as concerning is other people's behaviour who don't understand the legislation and are happy to sign away their civil liberties for no gain. In what way is driving to exercise somewhere not observing social distancing rules, providing that nobody from outside of your household is in the car, for example? How does this increase the transmission of the virus, where no social contact occurs? Nobody seems to be able to answer that without the ludicrious response of "oh but if the WHOLE POPULATION all travelled to this one exact same national park there wouldn't be enough space to do social distancing" which has literally never happened and never will.

Thanks for posting the link to the Regulations, OP. It's interesting to see how they differ from the advice we've been getting.

I do think the simplicity of the advice is a virtue, even if it goes further than the law. People need a short simple message that they can remember. Also, just because something is permitted under the Regulations it doesn't mean that we should do it. We shouldn't leave home for multiple shopping trips just because we can (those like the poster who is doing shopping for different households are exceptions).

We can go out for basic necessities. Food and medical supplies are given as an an example, along with supplies for the basic upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household. That's a pretty wide category I'd say.

Until I had to self isolate last week, I had been buying food and collecting prescriptions for neighbours. One elderly lady asked me to buy her a newspaper every day. I refused, saying that I would get one if also going out for food, but wouldn't go just to buy a paper. I guess one could argue that it was a basic necessity, and even if it isn't I could get round the restriction by buying a bar of chocolate at the same time so that I could argue I went out for food, but I felt that a special trip went against the (in my view sensible) advice to go out as infrequently as possible.

Most people will be sensible. I do worry a bit about the police overstepping the mark. But, at least at the moment, I worry more about the idiots who completely flout the law or those who will deliberately push it to its limits by insisting on exercising their right to do something that isn't necessary but hasn't been prohibited. If think the inevitable consequence of that would be a tightening of the restrictions. If we need that because there is a scientific need, fair enough, but if it will be annoying if it happens only because of the behaviour of a small minority of people.