UKH

Network urges rethink of Coronavirus policing guidelines

The National Rural Crime Network are calling for urgent clarification on Coronavirus lockdown conditions after new police guidelines said people were allowed to travel potentially long distances to exercise, something the group’s Police and Crime Commissioner members believe is not fair for rural communities.

https://www.nationalruralcrimenetwork.net/news/callforreview/

Whatever your opinion on the current regulations and the police advice, the ambiguitity (about how far it is reasonable to travel whilst exercising, well discussed on here) needs clarifying: grey areas don't help anyone.

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

This needed discussing weeks ago.  With lockdown likely to be eased in some form in the coming weeks, they are wasting their time.

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I can't see anything in the changed advice that would permit people to break the principle that they should not make anything but essential journeys outside the area where they are registered with the NHS

This is not something I would begin to contemplate even though I think it's fine to drive somewhere to exercise within your own locality as long as you are not Materially increasing close-quarter social interaction or infection by doing so

I don't think there has been any ambiguity about refraining from travelling outside your own locality unless essential.

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I don't think you can clarify something that is unclear in the first place. 

There does seem to be a lot of rural paranoia about at present. People criticising someone who parks a hundred yards from their house to walk their dog on the beach (complete with photos of the ''offender' and car registration on facebook), then in the next post wants someone to pick up a newspaper from the shop for them.

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

How about people read the government guidelines and apply them and leave the police to decide how to enforce them within their own force. 
 

The basic principle applies that if you were to defend yourself in court in front of a jury would they find you guilty? 
 

Imagine trying to defend driving to the lake district on social media. If the majority of posts would be from people carrying burning torches and wielding pitchforks then the answer is probably don’t go. 

In reply to Ridge:

It’s perfectly clear. No non-essential travel. If you have to leave the house keep it to a minimum. 
 

If a policeman stops you and asks you where you live and you’re 50miles from home, you’d better have a good excuse. 

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

On the basis that the aim of lockdown is to reduce transmission, allowing people in densely populated areas a short drive to exercise somewhere quieter seems reasonable.  During a run in their nearest city park they may see 50 people, surely it's better if they go to a quieter area for the same exercise where they only see 5?  Unfortunately there is a practical difficulty because with the best intentions, open areas that are easily accessible from cities are then likely to become very crowded.

I read the guidelines as an attempt to balance freedoms and restrictions at a difficult time, they probably haven't got it quite right, but it seems a reasonable attempt.

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

It is confusing if you read the NPCC document as a standalone piece, but what people are doing is confusing internal police policy on what they can (and will) prosecute you for and the Government legislation, that's two very different things, admittedly they don't line up, but the advice is stay at home, as demonstrated in the actual legislation:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

In reply to DancingOnRock:

One would hope that at the moment,  people aren't trying to push boundaries to the point prosecution is even likely.  I'm not holding my breath,  though.

In reply to Ridge:

It's amazing how many fewer words would have been written on social media if the law and the government advice were clear and clearly aligned.

It might have saved a North Yorkshire and Derbyshire police from some ridicule and bad community feeling as well.

I see on this thread there is still some confusion from some people over "leaving the house", one point of great unclearness in the government advice and previously with North Yorkshire police.

Edit - example.

• "Only go outside for food, health reasons or work (but only if you cannot work from home)" - https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus 
• "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. [...] the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises." - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

Flat out contradiction on "outside" vs "garden".  It's no wonder there is confusion.

In reply to wintertree:

Aye, at least it's given us all something to argue about to pass the time though.

In reply to wintertree:

I’d suggest anyone confusing outside with outside of their property, should probably stay inside, preferably with a responsible person to look after them. 

In reply to GrahamD:

Yes. What I’m trying to say is; do you consider your activity would be seen by the average man in the street to be justified and within the guidelines. 
 

Be that climbing without ropes, running 20miles or doing the three peaks. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

The government's page I both linked to and quoted said "Only go outside for food, health reasons or work (but only if you cannot work from home)"

It doesn't say "outside of their property", it says "only go outside".  The word "property" does not appear on the page.  There is nothing to hint to the reader that "outside" means other than its standard usage, as typified by the CED definition "Outside: not inside a building" - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/outside

It is either misleading or confusing.  What it means if we assume it is meant to reflect the law is "beyond your property" and what it says is "outside".

I am at a loss how else I can explain to you that the page absolutely is confusing.  It seems to have confused you, and it apparently confused some police officers too.

In reply to wintertree:

Of course there was some sense in saying something about front gardens, though more a case of "if you can stay 2m from the pavement that's best, as otherwise people have to walk in the road in order to distance from you".

If I had kids and they were playing in the front garden as I didn't have a back one, I expect I'd have put some sort of tape up 2m back from the pavement.

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

The whole thing is turning into a farce here in Wales we’re we have different ‘rules’ to England despite being so close. We are now in a position of people following the rules in England and being in breach of them by coming to Wales. It’s completely understandable that people would not be aware of them and now the First Ministers is thinking about retrospectively banning people coming to second homes. 

This isn’t about what’s best for Wales and the UK but the moronic labour led devolved government trying to score points on the Conservative led UK government. It’s welsh government elections next year you know...

In reply to wintertree:

I am at a loss to believe anyone in this country could think that going outside into their back garden is against the guidelines. I think you have an unhealthy obsession with what is written down and what is intended. It’s a common theme on this forum. You seem to deliberately misunderstand things.  

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Because the advice says "Do not go outside".

I am at a total loss how you can't see how that is confusing when it means "do not go outside except into your own garden".  

Perhaps you can give the the reasons you think a person reading "do not go outside" should assume that it doesn't apply to their garden?  Assuming their garden is outside...

I have never set out to try and deliberately misunderstand anything.  As I said last time I've been pushing for lockdown for a long time before it happened, and am fully behind these rules.  Last time I wanted to read the legal basis so that I could understand it - the law is one of the biggest changes to this country in my life and - shock horror - I was interested in it.  You spent 10 messages trying to point it out to me with various insults towards the end and a bunch of opaque, poorly referenced citations to a bill none of which covered the points I was interested in  Thankfully, Off Duty came along to point me to the correct bill which is the one being discussed here today.

The point I made here today - and continue to make - is that the advice in some areas is clearly confusing to the point that even the police have been confused [1]

Perhaps you could step back from trying to have a go at me for some imaginary reasons you've made up that don't actually apply and concede that "do not go outside" does not to a reasonable person mean "do not go outside except to your garden".   In your last post you (edit: apparently) tried to misrepresent it as "outside your property" but that was an interpretation you added.

[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-under-fire-for-telling-dad-front-garden/

In reply to Neil Williams:

Nice idea, but that would virtually guarantee the buggers would spent their entire time between the tape and the pavement.  Bungee cords and a ground anchor might be a better plan.

In reply to wintertree:

I get your point. The Government is just trying to keep the advice really, really simple and that's bound to miss out something.

They naturally aren't keen on saying 'don't go outside' and then following that up with a semantical debate about what 'outside' really means. 

The legislation is clear enough that you can go out into your backgarden and more detailed summaries of the government guidance say so too. It's only inevitable that the odd copper is going to get confused but coppers aren't lawyers and even the best lawyers aren't intimately acquainted with every Act in the UK. 

A lot of the advice says 'stay at home' which seems to address the example in question but that may be problematic in some other respect.

In reply to FreshSlate:

I agree - it's a balancing act between a simple messages they can get across to everyone, and an accurate message.  I just wanted to give an example of where I consider the advice to be very confusing compared to the legislation - I agree with you that the legislation itself is clear (if you're used to reading such things anyhow).  

In reply to wintertree:

Yeah that's fair enough. 

This type of thing does always get me thinking about what an impossible job the police have in trying to be remotely on top of the entirety of criminal law. 

Unfortunate for the public when they get it wrong, but also they can't allow themselves to be bullshitted by every freeman of the land. 

In reply to FreshSlate:

I was surprised in this case that government hadn’t produced some clear guidance for them from the get go; it was in nobodies interests to have some of the worse misinterpretations happening.

Oddly and thankfully quiet in all this.

In reply to wintertree:

I would have thought the police wouls have clear guidance too. It hasn't helped that a number of ministers have been freestyling on this issue whilst others have a 'do as I say not as I do' attitude. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

If you are in England and it has taken you an hour and half to travel those 50 miles and tell the policeman you are going for a walk that will take 5 hours then you don't need an excuse because what you are planning is, according to NPCC guidance, likely to be reasonable.

Dave

In reply to Tringa:

No, it is likely that your excuse is 'reasonable' against the litmus test of the law.  Your behaviour really isn't 'reasonable'.

In reply to GrahamD:

It’s almost as if there isn’t clear concordance between the guidance to the public, the guidance to the police, the law and what is useful.  That was the point being made, but notably one poster keeps trying to paint it as other posters trying to twist the law to do what they want.  I can’t speak for others but I’ve been making the case that it’s not half as clear as they insist - this should be obvious given the wide range of interpretations seen on this thread and many others.  

The post you are replying to said it was “according to NPCC guidance, likely to be reasonable.”  Your reply then appears to try to paint them has claiming it was reasonable behaviour it.  They never said that.  The point is that it is *under the NPCC* guidance.

In reply to wercat:

But what if you live close to the border of an NHS district? 

Maybe clearer would be to say max 15min drive each way for daily exercise. Then once every 7 days you can drive up to 30mins each way, but this should be for a longer exercise session of at least 2 hours. 

In reply to wintertree:

The point is that people are being left to behave like adults. We police by consent and no one wants to have hard lines that describe exactly what you can and can’t do. 
 

The tighter you make the guidelines, the more people will find problems with them and complain that (in their specific circumstance) they can’t abide by them. 
 

The government guidelines are there for people (and the police) to interpret, the NPCC guidelines are there to advise police, with examples of what might be acceptable. They end with “individual officers discretion should be used”. 

So, the police are not legally obliged to follow their own guidelines and if they feel the person is being unreasonable, they issue a fine and send them home. 
 

If the person really feels it’s inappropriate then they can waste the court’s time over it. And the test will always be; would the majority of people also think it’s inappropriate or not?
 

Otherwise we have pages and pages of legislation that certain people still find a way to interpret in a way that means they can remain unaffected. And the people who actually need to go about their lives in a reasonable way, can’t. 
 

We’ve all seen the TV programs where the police stop a well known character who knows all their rights, but seems completely unaware of any of their responsibilities. These are the type of people who are making the headlines. The rest of us are quietly carrying on in the best way we can. Distancing ourselves and limiting the time spent away from home. 
 

In reply to Jenny C:

I'm not sure how you'd police that.  I suppose the whole point is people not taking the micky out of the situation.

Re NHS areas- the point I'm making is that going so far away from home that you couldn't reasonably easily be treated by your own area's resources then you've made an impact on the NHS whereas just going over the border when where you live falls between two areas would be something that the system just has to take into account

In reply to wercat:

I think the NHS resources is a red herring. You don’t suddenly come down with CV19. We have this odd way of looking at worse case scenarios on this forum. 
 

What we don’t want is loads of people driving round the country bumping into each other, meeting up and spreading the virus far and wide. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

You have a lot of faith in the police to only dish out fines appropriately.

Sadly it costs time and money to contest these simple fines. The courts are there for a reason. Challenging it isn't 'wasting' a courts time, its going through due process.

As someone who spent any hundreds to contest a fine and get the case dismissed, for more than the fine itself, it's infuriating how easily the police dish out fines and how hard they are to get removed.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I do. Every interaction I’ve ever had with the police where they could have fined me if they’d felt like it, has not resulted in a fine. In the main, the British police don’t want to make enemies of the people. It doesn’t work. Talk to them reasonably, show that you understand why they’re stopping you, apologise and more on. If they send you home, go home. I’m willing to bet people fined have tried to be smart and unreasonable  

A quick google and in the 2 weeks of lockdown Essex police issued 20 fines. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

In general, but it still happens. "The British police don’t want to make enemies of the people." Time and time again we see the police act inappropriately. 99.9% of interactions will be great, but some aren't and fines will be inappropriately distributed. We all have bad days, as teachers we do. But that's why the courts are there.

I got fined for unlicensed operation. No license.

The police refused to accept an immigrant could drive on a UK license. NJ wouldn't give me a state license until my immigrant status was cemented and I was within 90 days of entering the country. I was clearly within the law driving on a UK license. Had my wife not been there I'd have been screwed because she then had to drive us home.

I had to take a day off school, no wage that day, drive 200 mile round trip, plus Hudson tolls and other toll roads to wait for court and get the court to dismiss the case in 10 seconds. I was an immigrant wanting a green card so needed a clean record, otherwise I'd have paid the fine. I suspect most people pay fines rather than challenge them.

Are all NY state Police incompetent? No, but it does happen, and I wasn't wasting court time by challenging them. That's what the court is there for, to give me due process.

The guidance is quite ambiguous and I can imagine many are paying fines rather than challenging them. They don't say you can't drive say an hour from Lancaster to the lakes for a 5 hour hike, yet the police clearly don't want you doing that. Or an hour from Chester to hike in Snowdonia. But the guidance is unclear. You are just deciding your version is the correct one and obvious one.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Its not the police who don’t want you doing that  it’s the government. The police have been instructed to engage, explain and encourage before any enforcement. Fines and arrest are last resort.

https://www.college.police.uk/Documents/COVID-19-Police-brief-in-response-t...

The NPCC guidelines say reasonable local travel. If you are stopped miles from home heading for the Lake District and have driven past miles of open countryside, then a trip to the Lake District is not a ‘reasonable excuse’ not in my eyes and I can’t see how it would be in anyone’s eyes. Is it reasonable in your eyes? 
 

“Use your judgement and common sense; for example, people will want to exercise locally and may need to travel to do so, we don’t want the public sanctioned for travelling a reasonable distance to exercise. Road checks on every vehicle is equally disproportionate. We should reserve enforcement only for individuals who have not responded to Engage, Explain, and Encourage, where public health is at risk”

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

 I can't understand all the confusion. As far as I can see it's all perfectly clear:

1. You MUST NOT leave the house for any reason, but if you have a reason you can leave the house

2. Masks are useless at protecting you from the virus, but you may have to wear one because it can save lives, but they may not work, but they be mandatory, but they may not

3. Shops are closed, except those that are open

4. You must not go to work but you can get another job and go to work

5. You should not go to the hospital or to the doctors unless you have to go there, unless you are too poorly to go there

6. The virus can kill people, but don't be scared of it. It can only kill people who are vulnerable or sometimes those who are not vulnerable. It's possible to contain and control it, sometimes, except that sometimes it leads to a global disaster

7. Gloves don't help, but they can still help sometimes

8. STAY HOME, but sometimes it's important to go out

9. There is no shortage of groceries in the supermarkets, but there are many things missing. Sometimes you won't need loo rolls but you should buy some just in case you do need some

10. The virus has no effect on young people except for those it does effect

11. Animals are not affected, but there is a cat that tested positive in Belgium plus some tigers

12. Stay away from tigers

13. You will have many symptoms if you get the virus, but you can also get symptoms without getting the virus, get the virus without getting any symptoms, or be contagious without having symptoms, or be non contagious with symptoms

14. To help protect yourself you should eat well and exercise, but eat whatever you have to hand as it's best not go out shopping

15. It's important to get fresh air but don't go to parks but go for a walk, but don't sit down, except if you are old, but not for too long, or if you are pregnant or if you not old or pregnant but need to sit down. If you do sit down don't eat a picnic

16. Don't visit old people but you have to take care of the old people and bring them food and medication

17. If you are sick you can go out when you are better but anyone else in your household can't go out unless they need to go out

18. You can get restaurant food delivered. These deliveries are safe. But groceries you bring back to the house have to be decontaminated outside your house for 3 hours including pizza...

19. You can't see you mother or granny, but they can take a taxi and meet an older taxi driver

20.  You are safe if you maintain a safe social distance when out but you can't go out with friends or strangers at the safe social distance

21. The virus remains active on different surfaces for 2 hours, or 4 hours, or 6... I mean days, not hours... But it needs a damp environment, or a cold environment that is warm and dry... in the air as long as it's not plastic

22. Schools are closed so you need to home educate your children, unless you can send them to school because you are not at home. If you are at home you can home educate your children using various portals and virtual classrooms unless you have no internet, or more than one child and only one computer, or you are working from home. Baking cakes can be considered maths, science or art. If you are you are home educating you can include household chores as education. If you are home educating you can start drinking at 10am

23. If you are not home educating children you can start drinking at 10am 

24. The number of covid 19 deaths will be announced daily but we don't know how many people are infected as they are only testing those that are almost dead to find out if that is what they will die of... The people who die of covid who aren't counted won't be counted

25. You should stay locked down until the virus stops infecting people but it will only stop infecting people if we all get infected so it's important we get infected and some don't get infected

26. No business will go under due to covid 19 except those businesses that have already gone under

I hope this clears thing up

In reply to DancingOnRock:

You've cherry picked. And what the government 'says' is different from their actual advice because we have cretins in government. The communication in the US and UK via these cretinous leaders has been a huge part of the trouble in compliance.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I haven’t cherry picked. The OP was about travel. The advice on “Going outside”. 
 

“During the pandemic, nobody should leave their home unless they have a reasonable excuse.”

In reply to DancingOnRock:

And exercise is a reasonable excuse.

But look at Wales, friends in north wales can only run for an hour, friends just over the border, in the borders, can run for 2-3 hours, probably run in to Wales..

We are seeing articles come out about scientists claiming they are being used as human shields for Government f*ck ups.

This will last for months, the Government and the Police need to act responsibly and with common sense. The US is 2-3 weeks ahead and should be a poster child of what goes wrong when you don't follow science and everyone just randomly decides on restrictions.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Exercise is a reasonable excise for leaving your home and travelling locally. 

 R0 also depends on demographics, hence different countries have different approaches and the social distancing measures have dropped the R0 in the U.K. All areas of all countries will have a different R0. 
 

We are not the US. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I don't know about other people in North Wales, but I'm running for as long as I feel like. Which is sometime less than an hour but other times significantly more. My justification being, I live in a sparsely populated place and even if everyone capable was out running (and some days they seem to be) you'd still barely see anyone. I am prepared to sacrifice my hobbies (for a while) but I'm not prepared to sacrifice my health and fitness to abide by rules set arbitrarily by politicians who don't look like they do much exercise themselves.

In reply to Groundhog:

Very well done, I chuckled.

Bob it on facebook and you've got a viral hit!

In reply to pancakeandchips:

There’s no time limit on exercise in England or Wales. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

its not a red herring, nor a herring of any hue for that matter - one of the stated reasons for people staying local is that requiring medical attention for any reason whatsoever, CV19 symptoms being a small part of this,  imposes an extra burden on resources, particularly if you travel far to a national park.  Tell the Cumbrian police chief based not far away as I sit that he has been spouting red herrings when he has quoted this himself.  It is known that Cumbria has hardly adequate services for its own residents (see Tim Farron's hard campaigning on these issues!)

Local Services for Local People is the theme at the moment.

You greatly exaggerate the risks of travelling and walking in the case of people who take almost cold war levels of precautions at avoiding contact when out.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Same people same virus. 

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Interesting looking at Strava most of my friends seem to do what you do.

early on they abided by the hour. But now they realize it’s months of this and there’s no reason for the hour they are less compliant.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

And Wales, a rural place, the one hour limit makes even less sense. Anyone with any free thought can see that.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I’ve found that most people stick near the built up areas. If I go for a 2 mile run I see more people than if I go for a 10mile one. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

The people are the same, the virus is the same. But the way they behave, the way they respect discipline, the way they live and how spread out they are. Are all very different. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

There is no hour limit in the U.K.  I suspect this is for a very good reason. 

1. those that wouldn’t do an hour would start to use that hour as an excuse to be out of the home for longer. 

2. those that do more than an hour would feel restricted.

3. Those that never exercise will be looking out of their windows and pointing the finger at anyone who goes out for 61minutes or longer. It’s bad enough the self righteousness that exists on social media as it is. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Nonsensical. New York is basically a European city. It was built by them.

its spread exactly the same way. Touch and coughs.

 It’s why the social distancing is mirroring each country. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Sorry I meant the once a day law.

its silly.

go for a run in the morning, ride at night. You’ve time now. In Wales you can’t.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Im not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying we are being too lax or more strict than the US?

So New York City has had 11,000 deaths and  the whole of the U.K. 18,000. 
 

You can’t compare the two places, something is different. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

why not?

i think NY have acted far better than the U.K. much more guided by science, better leadership better communication.

The U.K. has had 18,000 deaths, NY city, congested on an island just 11,000 deaths to say it was totally out of control a month ago and the peak has now passed. 
 

11,000 is a lot but it could have been a lot worse. The leadership has made strong fast decisions. The UK is still stalling over masks when everyone else weeks ago decided the evidence was clear. Yet again they err on the side of risk and wonder why they are the sick man of europe.

Instead the U.K. focused people on benches and not the thousands traveling every day on the transport systems not wearing masks..

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Let me get this right. London has had around 4,300 deaths of the 18,000 in the U.K. and New York with the same population as London has had 11,000 and you say NY has done better? 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

NY was hit relatively early But they were still too slow. London sat and watched. My god the tubes were still relatively a week after we knew what was going to happen. The U.K. has been a disaster. Your prime minister decided to get in line with Trump.. how stupid is that?

In reply to Groundhog:

Oops just noticed that this has been posted on another thread days before mine.

Sorry. Must pay more attention in future 

In reply to Groundhog:

check your alarm clock

'Clapping for the NHS' makes you exempt from the regulations apparently so clap like a bastard as you walk/climb/hang glide and everything will be fine.

In reply to Tringa:

Quite the reverse.