Two Women fined for walking for Starbucks

[Superketchup]

What rule have they broken? I don’t understand. Two of them met - yes can meet one other person - they’d driven 5 miles - surely that’s ok?! - and they had a Starbucks each which the police said was a picnic?!
Why are they keeping takeaways open if it’s agaisnt the law to get one? I took my kids to the park, the coffee shop was open for takeaway. It was freezing. We got a hot chocolate each. I’m too scared to do so again!

The government has landed the police in this by their vagueness with "local', which can mean anything.

They should have designated a defined radius.

There was someone from Nottinghamshire police on the BBC local news last night, discussing the actions of Derbyshire police. I’m paraphrasing but he said that driving 5 miles to exercise was fine, travelling 50 miles wasn’t. Of course, people don’t then know at which point between 5 and 50 miles things change.

There is confusion here between guidance and law

You shouldn't be fined for breaking the guidance, only the underlying law which has nothing to say about how far you can travel for exercise.

If these women want to appeal their fines (they probably should) then they will win.

Superketchup

“They travelled individually and met there.
Apparently the police are saying five miles was not in the spirit of lockdown.“

I’m a stickler, observe all regulations.

That’s just daft. Lots of people regularly walk further than 5 miles. Personally, I wouldn’t take the risk of going into a cafe (CEV DH) but if the Govt. doesn’t want people buying takeaways, why not just order them to close?

I think I missed the memo explaining how a 5 mile drive, alone in the car, contributes to the spread of covid . Does it get on the car wheels or something? Is it like the foot and mouth outbreak where you had to drive through disinfectant on some country roads?

You might be being sarcastic but we had someone on our local fb page saying exactly this, she was convinced it was being spread on car tyres.

Personally, I wouldn’t take the risk of going into a cafe (CEV DH)

The starbucks in Ashby (which is where they came from) is drive through so they probably didn't even get out their car

@merrymouse

'you should stay local – meaning avoiding travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live '

I think lots of people will be doing that anyway, but apart from the fact that many people have to travel to get to a supermarket, 10 months later more people need more support.

The first lock down was scary because it was so unexpected, but for many 6-12 weeks of isolation seemed manageable. Now things are really starting to fray at the edges.

But a) that’s not law, there is no distance at all mentioned in the regulations and b) what does that even mean? Does in mean we have to stay in the same borough in a city (we live on the edge of one and travelling to the nearest park in same borough is much further than next door borough for example).

Does in mean we have to stay in the same borough in a city (we live on the edge of one and travelling to the nearest park in same borough is much further than next door borough for example)

Amazingly, Derbyshire police were trying to tell people who lived within the Derby City Boundary in Alvaston that they couldn't go to Elveston castle as it was in South Derbyshire across a boundary. Its a couple of miles away.

Ok so a question for those of you screaming "stay in local, stay in your county"

I run, anything between 3 and 20miles.
If I were to stay in my village boundary I would have to run mile loops and would probably come in contact with at least 5 people per loop (I do of course give them space)

If I was to do a 3 miles loop then I would be going through my village plus the adjoining village and town and as part of that loop would be along an area that is very popular with walkers would possibly be within 5m of at least 50 people (unless I ran while its dark which isn't particularly safe in this cold snap with ice on the ground).

But if I do a 6mile loop on the trails, technically going through the boundaries of 4 villages and the small town, I would be very unlikely to see more than a couple of people (and those most likely at a distance).

If I did one of my 10mile loops, then I'd be going in to the neighbouring county and technically going in to the boundary of around 6 villages (plus the town) and again probably only see a couple of people at a distance.

My other 10mile loop is on back roads and not only technically goes through 4 villages but also the nearest big town (although there are genuinely only fields and the occasional farm house).

If I did my 20 mile loop which combines the 2 10mile loops then I'd lose count of the amount of village boundaries if be going through. Hell I don't even know where one village starts and another ends and this is all within a 5mile radius.

So for me staying within 5miles of home means I'm leaving my village and even my county, but I'm sure that you agree that I'm still local and safer doing the bigger loops than the 1 or 3 mile loop. Yes?

Now I know how incredibly lucky I am to be able to access these quieter routes.

The closest actual bigger town to me (not the boundary but the actual built up part), doesn't have that luxury. There are some nature reserves and a country park but pretty sure that they are as busy as the one part of myntown that's attracting all the walkers. But if someone there travels 6 miles in any direction then they too are in the middle of nowhere and far less likely to get near enough to anyone else to make transmission even slightly likely. So is it really wrong that they leave their town and go somewhere slightly out of area to exercise?

And at what point are they out of area?
And while we're at it at what point am I out of area? When I leave my village boundary (not that I'm even sure where that boundary is), or when i leave the county (less than a mile from where I live and in the same postcode area as me), when I leave the postcode area (actually a massive area I could run/walk all day and not leave the postcode area but also could run less than 3 miles and leave it, oh the joys of rural living)?
Really id like to know, because I don't own a car, but while I could I was getting the (empty) train to another village and running back. Said village is in the same postcode area as me, so technically local, but obviously not having a car I don't count it as local. If I had a car, I probably would. And tbh as soon as I can once more travel by train to get there, I'll be doing it again. One thing I learnt in the last lockdown is all the routes that are less likely to get busy and that is one of them.

There is nothing in the legislation about staying local so that is utterly irrelevant of course but the problem has been throughout the Government saying things that are not in the law. However as the law talks about what is reasonable then going a very long distance would breach that part of it. I am about 4 houses away from the next London borough and even another area - we are almost on the intersection of three. If I go into the wood opposite I am in one area. If I am home I am in my London borough and if I go to the end of the road I am in a different London borough.

Mind you I don't feel i do much but work 7 days a week to keep people in leisure on furlough.... The fun for next weekend will be yet more unpaid work for the state - my tax return.

If what is expected of me is to stay at home, I will do that. But that is not what the law, or even the guidance, says. The law says I can leave my home for exercise. I want to know before I do that exercise that it is permitted and I can do it without fear of punishment. Currently I cannot do that. If I travel for exercise (as is allowed), I may only find out during or after the exercise whether it is allowed or not. That causes anxiety and stress in a law-abiding person and ultimately leads me to stay indoors for 6 weeks like in lockdown 1. That is not what the government want (as it makes me much more likely to get really ill if I do contract Covid-19) so the government need to set clear parameters for this permitted exercise so that it is not decided on an ad-hoc or even retrospective basis.

Indeed. For example if my student sons go out for the daily walk or cycling that is allowed. If it were to snow and they went into the woods opposite and threw snowballs at each other that is lawful too as that is exercise but some police forces are taking the wrong view on that activity. Also I have twin boys who look utterly different - they might well be told by police they are pulling their leg if they say they are twins who live together, but they are - one very blonde and blue eyed, other very different.

Also as said we don't want to break the law. I lose my life's work, my legal career for things other people just get a fine over in life and my sons are law students. I am not saying if the police fined them for snow ball throwing they would have to self report that to the regulator but if it escalated they might.

The law needs to be clear and easy to follow and the guidance should be clear - eg it is not the law that you can only go out once a day to exercise but we would prefer if you only went out once.

This also isn’t a case of individual police officers being heavy handed. My parents who live in Ticknall nearby say the police were outside the reservoir giving everyone fines who went to the car park. They were doing the same at Calke Abbey (NT property) and Staunton Harold Reservoir. So certainly not an isolated incidence.

OFFS! Instead of constantly analysing every single detail given out by the government try engaging your brains and use common sense. If you want a coffee turn your kettle on, if you want a walk open your front door and walk around your street, it’s not that hard!

@AliceMcK

OFFS! Instead of constantly analysing every single detail given out by the government try engaging your brains and use common sense. If you want a coffee turn your kettle on, if you want a walk open your front door and walk around your street, it’s not that hard!

My common sense (and statistics) tells me that if 1 in 50 people have Covid-19 I am much more likely to catch it walking around my busy narrow streets (passing over 100 people typically in 30 mins) than driving 6 miles to the countryside where I might pass 5 people on a wide lane.

If you want a coffee turn your kettle on, if you want a walk open your front door and walk around your street, it’s not that hard!

Maybe you should engage your brain and use common sense. If i go for a walk around the streets I'll come into contact with a fuck ton more people than if I drove to the big fields a mile away. Which is safer from a covid transmission viewpoint... Affter all the only reason we are doing this is to lower the transmission rates.

@AliceMcK

Instead of constantly analysing every single detail given out by the government try engaging your brains and use common sense

Exactly. Unfortunately some people don't want to put two and two together or (conveniently) can't manage to do so.

Plus if you say that to talk a walk I can only walk from my front door, enact that in law then that is what I will do. If you enact a law that allows me to travel for exercise in my own area, I shouldn't then be fearful that a police officer may not deem 6 miles to be within my local area, even though to me it is. I need to know before I travel for exercise whether it is permitted or not, rather than during or afterwards on an ad-hoc basis.

[quote trulydelicious]@AliceMcK

Instead of constantly analysing every single detail given out by the government try engaging your brains and use common sense

Exactly. Unfortunately some people don't want to put two and two together or (conveniently) can't manage to do so.[/quote]
But there isn't 'every single detail' - detail is exactly what is missing. I am ultra law-abiding. I don't want to ever be told by a police officer I am doing something wrong. But the law/guidance specifically says I can travel for exercise in my area, but it doesn't say how far that area extends.

@BobbinThreadbare123

I think the major reasoning is that travelling across into Derbyshire from Leicestershire is a no-no. The coffee thing is ridiculous though.

Why is crossing a County border a no-no? It was 5 miles. I used to live 3 miles from a town that was in another county. Tesco, Boots etc were all in that town. If I stayed in my own county the nearest supermarket was 9 miles in the other direction.

Is this where you can’t travel unless you have to (work, Asda) so travelling 5 miles for a walk and a drink is against lockdown rules

BBC News - Are Covid patients getting younger?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55586994
The risk of dying under 40 WHEN INFECTED is believed to be around 0.4%. I cannot believe people are facing fines for driving 5 miles to walk. In Wales it is actually against the law so I have to walk my already bored shitless preschoolers along the same mile long stretch every day.

@benedicto

I understand that. But if the message is stay at home stay local even if there is little detail, at what point does it become common sense to get into a car, drive 5 miles and meet a friend for a coffee? (unless you had to drive to do essential shopping, go to a pharmacy, etc)

I think common sense is the important thing. We've been fortunate in that our restrictions on exercise are not as strict as they have been in some countries such as France and Spain. Ideally I guess we should all exercise from our front doors, leaving there for a walk or run or whatever, but we have more flexibility than that which is good for those where exercising from home is impractical.

So for me (city suburb) a run from home or a short drive of a couple of miles to my local park, seems reasonable. A drive out into the country to an NT property or to the coast, not reasonable.

Everyone's circumstances will be different, but just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you should.