Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Two Women fined for walking for Starbucks

648 replies

Superketchup · 08/01/2021 13:17

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!

OP posts:
LastTrainEast · 09/01/2021 21:12

It's really simple. To avoid spreading the virus people were told to only go out if they must and if they did go out to exercise to keep it local.

So these two say "I can do what I like. Let's both drive somewhere nice and get a coffee and catch up".

What were they planning to do if they broke down? Walk home or get someone to pick them up?

badpuma · 09/01/2021 21:23

@LastTrainEast

It's really simple. To avoid spreading the virus people were told to only go out if they must and if they did go out to exercise to keep it local.

So these two say "I can do what I like. Let's both drive somewhere nice and get a coffee and catch up".

What were they planning to do if they broke down? Walk home or get someone to pick them up?

There is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right. It is possible to argue that the two women should not have been driving to walk, but they were not breaking any laws by doing so. Therefore the police had no power to fine them and exceeded their power in doing so.

If Covid is being passed on significantly by people walking after driving, the government will no doubt change e law to reflect this. Until then, the police can advise, recommend alternative courses of action and encourage to do something else. They cannot fine.

Billie18 · 09/01/2021 21:28

Their crime was looking like they were having too much fun. Should have worn drab clothes, definitely no make up, not talked and definitely not be drinking a nice warming drink and they should have driven somewhere less pretty.

echt · 09/01/2021 21:29

@Billie18

Their crime was looking like they were having too much fun. Should have worn drab clothes, definitely no make up, not talked and definitely not be drinking a nice warming drink and they should have driven somewhere less pretty.
Daffodil
lazylinguist · 09/01/2021 21:29

What more evidence do you need than the police fines being overturned? The police were in the wrong. That is a fact. They fined people for doing things that they were allowed to do.

So these two say "I can do what I like. Let's both drive somewhere nice and get a coffee and catch up".

Or to put that in a different way "Let's drive to a nice open space and take our exercise, just like the guidance says we can. I think I'll grab a takeaway coffee on the way, from Starbucks which wouldn't be open if we weren't supposed to go there." Hmm

Russellbrandshair · 09/01/2021 21:30

@Shaniac

The fines aren't legal and wont be paid. Same as the first lockdown nearly all fines were overturned because they werent based on any rulebreaking.
Yup but it’s EXTREMELY concerning that the people with power to enforce the law don’t seem to know what the actual law is. That’s very very concerning
Russellbrandshair · 09/01/2021 21:32

@Billie18

Their crime was looking like they were having too much fun. Should have worn drab clothes, definitely no make up, not talked and definitely not be drinking a nice warming drink and they should have driven somewhere less pretty.
I agree. If they’d looked more drab, wore beige shapeless clothes and were drinking a cup of tepid water and looking miserable the whole time they would have met the criteria for “spirit of lockdown” and would have been fine.
Nonamesavail · 09/01/2021 21:34

Really OTT on the officers behalf.

lazylinguist · 09/01/2021 21:34

There is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right.

But who gets to decide what's morally right? The law tells us what we are not allowed to do. The guidance tells us what we should and shouldn't do. Some people seem to mistakenly think it's their job to decide that certain things are allowed by the guidance but morally wrong.

Russellbrandshair · 09/01/2021 21:35

There is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right

Not when it comes to the police there isn’t ! If police can now arrest people for acting immorally but perfectly legally then half of parliament need to be arrested now

Snaketime · 09/01/2021 21:36

It's because they were from another country with continually high infection rates.

badpuma · 09/01/2021 21:43

@Russellbrandshair

There is a difference between what is legally right and what is morally right

Not when it comes to the police there isn’t ! If police can now arrest people for acting immorally but perfectly legally then half of parliament need to be arrested now

That was my point. The police are not there to enforce anything other than the law so all the people shrieking about 'but they should just STaY aT Home' should learn the difference and understand what the police's role actually is.
CaptainMyCaptain · 09/01/2021 21:44

@Snaketime

It's because they were from another country with continually high infection rates.
County not Country. They were a couple of miles over the border between Leicestershire and Derbyshire, do you think that makes a difference?
Russellbrandshair · 09/01/2021 21:47

@badpuma

Sorry- I totally agree with you!
It’s worrying people think you should be arrested not for breaking the law but for your morals! I could barely get the police to investigate when my nana was robbed and that was a crime let alone questioning people for walking

mumof2exhausted · 09/01/2021 22:13

The fine has been cancelled a police admitted they were over zealous

Againstmachine · 09/01/2021 22:48

I've been called all sort of names today on Facebook, for actually stating what the law says, it's funny people one people punished for laws that don't exists.

hobbyiscodefordogging · 09/01/2021 22:57

All I would say is...

If you want a strict interpretation of "Stay at home", that's fine; you do you and don't worry about anyone else. Do not get annoyed when other people don't stick to your own interpretation of what's ok, because your interpretation is not what is written into law. If you feel the law doesn't go far enough to protect you, that's on you to stay at home. You can't compel other people to go beyond what is lawfully required.

If you want to carry on going out and about, please know that the guidelines and the legislation are not actually aligned. The guidelines are to stay local. The legislation does not specify a distance. Please act responsibly but at the same time familiarise yourself with your rights. Do not accept a fixed penalty notice if you do not feel you have broken the law. Ask the police for an explanation, record it, and contest it. Tell them you do not want a fixed penalty notice but they can prosecute you if they believe you have committed an offence.

trulydelicious · 09/01/2021 23:19

@OnlyTeaForMe

Not everyone has appropriate routes right from their front doors.
I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out that for women, walking in pairs, especially after dark (which is about 4.15pm here currently) is an important safety factor

It wasn't dark. Also I struggle to believe that these ladies could not find 'appropriate routes' closer to home to 'exercise'

Horizons83 · 09/01/2021 23:31

@trulydelicious

Of course they could find more appropriate routes closer to home. But that's not the point. They chose that one, as they are legally entitled to do. And therefore the police should not be fining them.

If people have an issue with that contact your MP and demand that they amend the legislation. But you cannot be happy that the police are fining people that have not broken the law.

Aggie72 · 10/01/2021 00:06

During the first lockdown hardly anybody got in their cars to drive anywhere to exercise! Mahogany people did stay at home and take. Their daily walks around where they live. I can’t understand why people aren’t getting it this time round, given the levels of infection and higher death rates. TBH they weren’t likely to be putting their fellow walkers at risk but there really is no need during a lockdown to get I your car to drive 5 miles to meet a buddy! Exercise near your home or at home and FaceTime/Skye or call to chat. It’s really not that hard is it?

Aggie72 · 10/01/2021 00:08

That was meant to say many not mahogany 😂

Celestine70 · 10/01/2021 00:29

Police are on a power trip.

trulydelicious · 10/01/2021 00:34

@Celestine70

Police are on a power trip

Maybe they can't think clearly due to the sheer exhaustion caused by having to babysit adults who are just taking the piss?

Goingdooolally · 10/01/2021 00:37

I’ve not read the whole thread but is anyone else slightly suspicious? The photos look almost staged. Who took the photo of them? 🤔 Very glam portrait shot of the pair of them on the front cover of the Times this morning!

trulydelicious · 10/01/2021 00:53

@Goingdooolally

The photos look almost staged
Who took the photo of them

I agree, but to what end though?