Spoken to by the police

[Foldinthecheese]

This morning my husband and I took our three children on a long walk/scoot to a local park that is probably two miles away. We had seen the recent police guidance that said stopping for a snack during a long period of exercise is allowed, so we packed some crisps, fruit and our water bottles, intending to have them in the park before heading back home. We have twin DSes, four, and a one year old DD.

While sitting in the park (in a green space, far from any paths, with no one nearby) two police officers approached and said we needed to move on because what we were doing was against guidelines and someone had called to report us. It wasn’t a problem to leave, but I was a little annoyed by the situation. I mentioned the guidelines regarding a snack during long exercise and they seemed unaware of this, and asked to see it on my phone. They then said that it was an issue of public perception, which I understand, but I’m not sure why that would impact the legality of our actions. One officer suggested that we should have gone to a park closer to our house, but the space isn’t really comparable and it’s more of a play park: lots of equipment that is currently covered in caution tape.

I don’t know really why I’m writing this, except I feel frustrated. We’ve followed all the guidelines for the past month and it’s annoying that the police seem unaware of the guidance that has been made publicly available that says what we did was acceptable. It was also just really nice to go slightly further than the one mile radius around our house and enjoy seeing the flowers in the park, and it feels like it put a dampener on the morning.

My worry is what would happen if we all decided to drive to the same park,have a leisurely wander and then sit having our snacks?

That wouldn't fit the 'likely to be reasonable' criteria.

You can drive for a walk that is far longer than the drive (so not a 'leisurely wander') and you can stop for a rest or to have lunch in the middle of a long walk.(and what constitutes a long walk is surely different for a 4 year old vs a fit adult)

I don't believe anyone is genuinely confused about what's clearly not reasonable, like your example.

You'd be taking the piss if you did that, the OP wasn't.

Ok so is someone trying to tell me you can stop for lunch, but not a picnic.

And ok I have a definition that a packed lunch is a solo affair, where a picnic is communal and needs a blanket. Does that mean you can stop for lunch as long as the kids carry their own?

Seriously the rules are bonkers. And very easy to be miss interpreted. But the important thing in all of it is keep at least 2m away from other people.

these guidelines are stating that if you must, must have a snack

Which guidelines are you reading? The college of Police’s guidelines just say it is reasonable to stop and eat lunch whilst on a long walk...

these guidelines are stating that if you must, must have a snack after some vigorous exercise then ok sure.
C.o.P says its ok to eat lunch outside on a long walk.

Not sure I'd want dc sitting around anyway op
What actual harm is there sitting on grass with your family to have a snack far away from everyone else?

@Blackbear19 the rules arent bonkers it is the hair shirt, self flagellating interpretation of the rules that is bonkers:

• going out separately rather than as a family to avoid having fun is bonkers
• not going to the park if you have a garden is bonkers
• not doing things like stopping for a snack in case it creates the wrong perception is bonkers
• only ever going to the nearest park even if unsuitable is bonkers

(All the above just from this thread BTW)

The truly bonkers this is that a large proportion of MN (particularly in AIBU it seems) have reading comprehension difficulties. Have thought it for some time, but these persistent threads in social distancing have been the cherry on the icing

The police might be less "busy" if they stopped harassing following up reports of people doing nothing wrong.

GnomeDePlume yip lots of bonkersness making it harder than necessary.

LaLaLandIsNoFun yes lots of people like reporters taking snippets and twisting them out of context to create a fight.

Notice that a lot of the 'crowding' photos were taken using angles and lenses which foreshortened distances making it look like people were on top of each other when quite possibly they werent.

Made a good story and added fuel to the fire

Having read how batshit crazy so many people have become, as evidenced on this thread, and others; I now completely understand how Brexit happened.

All but zero critical thinking skills. Blind, steadfast adherence to made up, ever changing 'laws'; the chanting of slogans; the hysterical demands that others must adhere to your made-up 'rules'; the complete inability to Risk Assess; the championing of heavy-handed policing; the snooping, shopping of others; the belief that we're all so stupid that just because we see others not necessarily sticking to the guidelines, that we'll all rush out to flaunt them, thus they must be tightened with an iron grip.

As one poster, advocados? said earlier: The principle of "minimise social contact with those outside your household" is now what I'm following.

Me too. I cannot be doing with the '10 minutes! Liar!' 'Snack? That was a picnic!'etc- brigade.

You are pathetic

Miljea has lost it! And I am so with you!!

What have I lost? The ability to become hysterical about a host of made up rules?

Like I said, the principle of "minimise social contact with those outside your household" is now what I'm following.

Your post reads like you have lost it with all the "bat shit crazy" types.

I totally identify. Also fed up with the extremes of rigid bullshit. "Well go for a walk then if you want to die horribly and kill a nurse"