Do you think police where right to fine for this?

[TheFakePlantIsTheOnlyOneILike]

Family Member (FM) just called me about this and I couldn’t be sympathetic and wondering if I was in the wrong to not be.

FM was fined £200 by police for travelling out of area to go shopping. She travelled about 30 miles. FM lives in the same town as me, in our town we have a b+m with a small food department, an Aldi which is basically opposite b+m, a Morrisons (it’s not one of the small local ones, but it’s not a massive store either) plus an array of local butchers, greengrocers, and a shop that sells herbs and spices, all open for business (I know as I use them). I have never struggled to get anything foodwise.

FM is going to appeal against the fine for the following reasons, they say they’re only meant to go to one shop and:

• They can’t get everything they want in b+m
• Morrisons is too expensive
• They don’t like Aldi
• She’d have to go to more than 1 shop if she went to a butchers or the greengrocers (ignoring the fact that one of the butchers has teamed up with a greengrocer and they’re selling each others produce in boxes for purchase so you only have to go to one place)

So I know this isn’t AIBU but AIBU to think the police were right to fine her as she could easily get everything she needed in town?

What are everyones thoughts?

Depends where you live I suppose. 30 miles is Birmingham to Worcester or central London to Hemel Hempstead (essentially countryside). On that basis, I would say her reasoning provides no mitigation and it’s an unnecessary journey as there’s plenty of shops en route. “I don’t like Aldi” etc isn’t a great justification honestly, her reasons sound a bit childish.

However if you both live quite rurally and genuinely had nothing else around within the 30 mile radius, it’s fine.

As others have said, a better defence would her saying that the law doesn’t specify a certain distance to travel for essential supplies. Don’t say “I don’t like Aldi”, it’s cringeworthy

Does she normally do a 60mile round trip to do her shopping or is she just doing it to make a point.

I agree totally with a fine in this circumstances. If you live rurally and have to travel that far for your nearest supermarket fine. Otherwise, it's not. She had numerous options that involved less or no travel.

Mildly unreasonable, however, she could be a Tesco loyalty card holder going for a big monthly shop plus there are certain dietary and other items there that I can't get anywhere else. Or something specific for a child or disabled person that they can't do without. Or maybe she needed new knickers that are not available in aldi or others.

This bloody lockdown has been going for too long and I would make a longer trip to restock something I missed.

I think we all know that it's a ridiculous reason to fine someone but lockdown lovers aren't going to admit that.

YABU. There are a number of reasons people might do this. For me, because both DS and I have allergies and DS has extra needs, I usually end up having to buy 2 different versions of things. I can either go to 1 specific superstore which is quite far away or go to 3-4 different local shops, and I do have to pass lots of smaller supermarkets to get to the 1 big one where I can get everything at once. I'm assuming you'll come back and say no, nothing like that, they're my family member so I know it was just because they wanted to, but their reasons are valid too. Morrisons and Sainsburys are more expensive, especially if you usually go to Tesco and use their reward scheme, it could work out a lot cheaper even after petrol costs. Also, smaller supermarkets don't always have their 'own brand' things, my local Tesco mostly carries branded items but there's a larger Tesco the next town over and I know they do actually make their own brand cheaper items of the branded items we have, they just don't stock them in ours. B&M is generally cheap for branded items but supermarket own brand are still cheaper than branded a lot of the time. Just because you haven't struggled to get things doesn't mean someone else will also be fine, it may surprise you but not everyone eats the same food or can afford the same things eg fresh meat and fruit/veg from the local green grocer and butcher which you can get frozen or cheaper from the supermarket. The police should not be fining for this regardless of the reason as it's not illegal.

Am I the only person who hasnt worked out what FM stands for ...?

Our town has 4 supermarkets.i usually go slightly out of town to a big tesco or Aldi. (3 are ridiculously expensive and the sainsbury is useless, runs out of everything, covid or not, and is too small) I wouldnt go 30 miles away though. The paces I go to are about 5 or 6 miles away.

the police are overreaching - no rules in England limiting distance for essential shopping. So she will win,

Fines should be for breaking the law, not for not being with the 'spirit of the lockdown' which is what this is.

Seems a bit OTT of both the police AND your mum.

She went 30 miles to Tesco because Morrisons is too expensive

Pull the other one

She didn't break the law or increase the risk of spreading covid, so she shouldn't be fined.

Her logic that she wants to go to Tesco because Morrisons is too expensive is way off though, especially as she needs to factor in the extra cost of getting to Tesco.

At one point we had a kitten who would only eat Tesco own brand kitten biscuits, so I had to make sure we had a good stock of those in, but otherwise, Tesco is the last place I'd shop, especially if I was on a budget as it's probably above average in cost, certainly above Morrisons, Asda, Lidl and Aldi.

@Fizbosshoes

Am I the only person who hasnt worked out what FM stands for ...?

Our town has 4 supermarkets.i usually go slightly out of town to a big tesco or Aldi. (3 are ridiculously expensive and the sainsbury is useless, runs out of everything, covid or not, and is too small) I wouldnt go 30 miles away though. The paces I go to are about 5 or 6 miles away.

Fm= family member.

It’s not illegal so the fine isn’t valid and wouldn’t stand up in court. There is nothing in the legislation that dictates a distance limit for any of the reasons you are “allowed” to leave the house for. The police need to learn the laws and stop interpreting them how they see fit

Exactly. Common sense doesn't come into it, a law-abiding person has received a £200 fine for nothing. Some of these police officers need to spend the spare time they clearly have to read up on the actual LAW of this.

@FreezeFloodlit

It does sound a long way to go for shopping to me, but that's irrelevant. It's not illegal and the police can't issue fines for things that aren't illegal. I'd be astonished if the fine was upheld and I think good on your relative for appealing it.

This is the point under law. There is no law against what your FM has done, and even the Guidance (non-binding) does not specifically rule this out. The travel section does include shopping for food etc and does not specify a distance. So there is no legal distance, so your FM has broken no law.

Your FM would be better to appeal it on these grounds, rather than the ridiculous reasons given in the OP. Those little details are not what matters and are further examples of OPINION rather than LAW.

I would have hoped the police would have found better things to do with their paid time by now. For example, entering those shops and enforcing the actual law on face coverings.

Fines should be for breaking the law, not for not being with the 'spirit of the lockdown' which is what this is

^^ this.

The fine won't stand up and the police are ridiculous.

100% overturned on appeal. The law is was it reasonably necessary to leave the house to visit shops.

This. There’s the law, which the police enforce. The guidance is not the law. It may not be within the “spirit of the law”, but it is within the law. She should definitely appeal. Couldn’t be bothered to travel that far myself, but she hasn’t done anything illegal.

@polanama

I agree totally with a fine in this circumstances. If you live rurally and have to travel that far for your nearest supermarket fine. Otherwise, it's not. She had numerous options that involved less or no travel.

But we do not have a law in this cuobntry that says yuo have to use your nearest supermarket!

Why is this so difficult to grasp?

It's like the "stay local" for exercise.

If the government wants people in England to only travel up to 5k for a walk or 10k for essential shopping, then it should say so. As it hasn't, the police can't make up their own rules and fine people for going further.

MNers don't make the rules, the government does.

Oh dear a few typos there :) I meant country and you, obvs

@Caswint

I'm not in the UK, but in Italy in March - April lockdown, we needed to use the local supermarket. Getting food is essential, but getting food from a store a long drive away, when numerous others are closer, is not essential.

I'd say the police were right to fine her. I hear 'use common sense' a lot about lockdown. It is common sense that using the local shops is the point of lockdown and staying at or near home.

That said, I don't know what guidance has been given in the UK or how clear it has been.

The law in England is not what the law in Italy and Spain was in March.

Sigh.

I don't find Morrison's more expensive than Tesco. That being said I do have a Tesco clubcard and the free school meal vouchers I use there. So although there is a Sainsbury's, Asda and Aldi closer I go to Tesco. It's still only a few miles away though, in the same town.

Maybe the govt should bring in a travel restriction limit. In Australia we couldnt go more than 5km.

@lljkk

Good that the road was empty.

She shouldn't have asked if she didn't want honest opinion from OP.

60 miles roundtrip is about 1.5 hours in my area, and cost to drive (wear n tear & fuel) maybe £15 (£6 fuel, £9 wear n tear). So false economy one suspects.

£9 wear and tear?? What do you drive? A 1965 Ford?

@YesMeLady

Maybe the govt should bring in a travel restriction limit. In Australia we couldnt go more than 5km.

Most people don't work within 5 km of their house and many, many people can't get essential shopping within 5 km either. It would have to have so many exceptions as to be completely meaningless in terms of infection control and extremely difficult to effectively enforce, but yes is the kind of thing that would doubtless appeal to the sort of people who want to see 'tough action' and a government that looks like it's really doing something and taking it seriously.