Official Police Guidance on reasonable reasons to be away from your home during 'lockdown'. England only.

[NevilleGoddard]

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/COVID-19/Documents/What-constitutes-a-reasonable-excuse.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiH6u3sturoAhWhmFwKHWaSCUcQFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw2TGvBnKDHW7_Xf1DzKgYnT" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/COVID-19/Documents/What-constitutes-a-reasonable-excuse.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiH6u3sturoAhWhmFwKHWaSCUcQFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw2TGvBnKDHW7_Xf1DzKgYnT

Interesting reading.

Newspaper/pint of milk/loaf of bread as single items - 'likely reasonable'.

Buying non-essentials/luxuries with other shopping - same.

Picking up food from a friend - same.

Leaving home to go to another house for a few days because of arguments in household-same

Buying just non-essentials/luxuries if already out of the house for good reason - same.

Resting or stopping to eat on a long walk - same.

Travel to exercise - same. And confirms travel to exercise is not unlawful.

Thank you!! This is useful and important (as others have said, especially the "cooling off" item. But selfishly, the short drive to have a long walk is the one I am happiest to read)

I'm so glad posters are finding it helpful.

So we can go out for exercise twice? So if I take the kids out then I want a proper run (as opposed to a kids walk) then I can?

So we can go out and buy luxury or non essential items, so why are shops selling those, closed?

We can go and stay with friends or family, for a short time, to "cool off"? So, anyone who wants to can go and stay with friends and family for a visit then because no one is going to be able to disprove "cooling off" are they?

So, lockdown has ended then pretty much?

And I've just seen resting to eat whilst on long walks is ok too. So picnics are fine. Great.

It really doesn't matter. Police where i live don't give a monkeys if people swan off for a holiday - well not if the person concerned is an abusive man, it seems. I've spent days on the phone trying to get them to take action, but they haven't got the resources to care/ do anything about it / get back to me.

If what they are saying is correct then I don't see the point at all of being in lockdown. They are saying that it's fine to mix households for visits, and to go out and have picnics. So, what's the point?

It doesn't say that though does it HearHooves.

So we can go out and buy luxury or non essential items, so why are shops selling those, closed?
Because those items need to be part of your normal “essential” shop, like a supermarket. It shouldn’t be a separate shop. So you could buy a book from a supermarket, but you couldn’t buy one from a book shop.

Visits for several days are ok and picnics is snacks while in the middle of exercise. Visiting for a few hours is not and going out to eat with a short walk to claim exercise is not. The lockdown still counts, it's just applying sense.

Somebodysringingabell

What doesn't it say?

daisypond

The op doesn't stipulate that. It says you can buy luxury or non essential items if already out. Where does it say you have to buy them from a supermarket?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

There is a difference between what you legally can do without being fined, and what a socially (and personally) responsible person should do.

Whether something is legal is the lowest bar.. then you have to make your own decision as to whether it fits into the (rather woolly, TBF) guidelines from the govt, and whether it is something that you personally view to be a responsible thing to do.

Excellent 👍
Buying several days’ worth of food, including luxury items and alcohol.
Buying a small amount of a staple item or necessity (eg, a newspaper, pet food, a loaf
of bread or pint of milk).

This confirms what many of us have already been saying:
It's totally reasonable to have treats in with your food shop and it's reasonable to buy essentials if you run out, but nowhere is it said that it's reasonable to be popping to the shop because you happen to fancy a bar of chocolate.

I'm awaiting for the "but I need my treats" crowd to get back to their 'but technically what if my chocolate/beer was a necessity to me...' arguments.

I'm also looking forward to the arguments made by those arguing that going for a picnic in the park was reasonable.

Where does it say you have to buy them from a supermarket?
It doesn’t. I’m using that as an example of why specialist luxury item or non-essential shops are closed and saying you may be able to get those same items from a shop that is already open.

Visits for several days are ok and picnics is snacks while in the middle of exercise. Visiting for a few hours is not and going out to eat with a short walk to claim exercise is not.

Visiting for several days is still mixing households. How is that ok? Of course, if a relationship breaks down or there's abuse and you are moving out permanently but how is a short visit ok? There's nothing to stop people just going on visits is there?

And where does it say "snack during exercise"? The op says sitting to eat whilst out on long walks - how is that not a picnic?

But as it says in the link/pdf. These are only guidelines. It's up to the individual officers dealing with each incident to use there own judgement.

If people think waving this in the police's face, thinking they've found some magical loophole while taking the piss and that it will help their cause, then they're very much mistaken

Police discretionary powers are so they can use those powers to fit each individual case. Not sure why people don't understand this

It's not 'visits are okay and so are picnics'.

Its exercising common sense. Resting or eating okay on a long walk - common sense.

Being able to go somewhere else for a few days because things are getting heated at home which can help to prevent abuse or relationship breakdowns. Common sense.

It doesn't say start visiting people or having picnics.

So happy to see you on this thread HearsHooves. Having seen you strenuously hectoring other posters all over MN for not following your understanding of the guidance it's really vindicating to see you being proved wrong 😏

I thought we were only allowed out once to exercise? I’ve been tag teaming with DH and alternating one run one day the kids and dog next day. So I can run then take kids and dog out for exercise too?

Although i'm glad to see sensible guidelines I think many Police will struggle with this. It is not clear enough what is ok and what is not so some forces are going to overdo it and others will be accused of being too lax.

It's been confirmed that it's ok to drive somewhere to go for a walk, as long as the drive is shorter than the walk. The police will have to decide what is a 'reasonable' ratio of drive:walk. They've spent the last 3 weeks blocking off car parks in beauty spots and warning people there about 'non-essential travel'. They're going to lose face if they have to roll back on that.

Yes @Delatron.

@YgritteSnow I did think the same tbh.

The op says sitting to eat whilst out on long walks - how is that not a picnic?

It's only a picnic if the food is in a wicker basket with a flask and there's boiled eggs. Clarified.

And where does it say "snack during exercise"? The op says sitting to eat whilst out on long walks - how is that not a picnic?
If I was out hiking and I stopped for my sandwiches, it's just that, stopping to snack and then I keep walking. It's not sitting down for a good old chin wag with whoever I'm with, catching some sun and a leisurely lunch.

It's sad that we've had to get to the point where the police are having to point out that a snack part way round a longer period of exercise is reasonable, but walking a short distance for a picnic isn't.

It's almost like they know at one extreme you've got people trying to make lockdown as miserable as possible and on the other absolute piss takers who think they can, and will, do what they like and will try to argue the toss to justify it.

They've spent the last 3 weeks blocking off car parks in beauty spots and warning people there about 'non-essential travel'. They're going to lose face if they have to roll back on that
I think they're still right to keep them blocked off. The last thing that's going to help social distancing is people taking this common sense guidance to mean "let's all have a family day out to the local beauty spot/popular woodland".

The other day I saw the police moving single people along if they were sitting under a tree in the park - however they were nowhere to be seen last night and I went for a walk after work and saw one group of 7 lads sitting having a nice time, and then another group of 4 lads rinding their bikes through the park. I’m sure they were all roomies or brothers.

There’s also a large group I always see on my regular walk - looks like 4 older men and a couple of younger couples - always standing chatting by some benches. They can’t all be living together?