UKH

Coronavirus regulations: restrictions on movement: notice

Seen on a notice in Horton-in-Ribblesdale this morning (Thurs 11 Feb), on a car parked in the layby by the bridge/church.

Car wasn't there when I arrived, but the car and the notice were there about 2 hours later when I went back, so the police are on the case.
There have been reports that the police have been active at the National Park car park in the Horton on a Saturday, but this was a Thursday parked in the layby by the bridge.  North Yorks Police are clearly on the ball

Moral of story: if you're thinking of nipping up to Horton-in-Ribblesdale in a car that's out-of-area reg, you won't escape the notice of NYP by avoiding the National Park car park, and by coming mid-week. Or if you're bona fide, and your reg is out-of-area, stick a note inside your windscreen?

Location: https://maps.northyorks.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main?mapcfg=Out_and...

If they're basing their vengeance on car registrations they're creating a rod for their own backs surely?  There must be a huge proportion of folk living in the area with non-yorkshire registrations. Just looking out of the window at the 11 houses in my hamlet, only 2 of 15 cars have scottish registrations - mine are currently oxford and falmouth.  In fact, out of 18 cars I've owned since I passed my test in 1979 only 3 have been 'local' to whereever I lived at the time.   

Surely the Police have access to the DVLA database on registered keepers?

I'm pretty certain that's the first thing they check before sticking the flyer on the car!

No doubt so it's more likely that they're targeting any cars parked in laybys rather than just any with an out of town reg. 

it is a warning letter not a FPN --- but hopefully might focus a few minds.

 And no big issue if there for legitimate reasons

I think they'll be looking for cars who's owners aren't local to Ribblesdale. The Cumbrian police (apparently) were at the top of Haweswater the other day and gave FPN to several climbers from far afield heading to Bleawater, but merely tried to reason with those they knew were from Kendal. So in their minds they have decided what constitutes 'local'.

Seems reasonable to me. I can't read the note but I guess it reminds people that they should not travel outside their local area.

Although not all police vehicles are equipped with ANPR cameras, all forces have access to it so it would only take a few minutes to check the address to which the registered.

Dave

Indeed.  Fining for it (unless massively taking the mick, e.g. from London) is a bit much.  Education ("do you *really* think that's in the spirit of things") sounds good to me.

I do hope Yorkshire police play catch up as to the difference between Law and guidance. Perhaps someone from Derbyshire Constabulary can help them. While I have no disagreement with advising people to follow travel guidance (and do not approve of long distance travel for exercise), I am deeply uneasy as to the half truths and white lies in this document used as threats. I do hope a recipient forwards it to the BBC or similar for legal review and suitable chastisement.

Which half-truths and lies are you referring to?

"I do not believe the circumstances of this vehicle being present in this location to be a reasonable interpretation of the exemptions to restrictions in movement"

Restrictions on movement apply to international travel and at times to devolved regions. There is no restriction on movement in England: the law applies to a reasonable excuse to leave the house. I believe Scotland closed this loophole. This statement deliberately implies restrictions on movement (which exist for other circumstances) apply to exercising (which they do not). To quote NPCC guidance  "The Covid regulations which officers enforce and which enables them to issue FPNs [fixed penalty notices] for breaches, do not restrict the distance travelled for exercise." 

"Should you travel uneccessarily you may be subject to a FLN of £200". As above this is a half truth that doesn't apply to exercise (but might to a trip to McDonalds).

The next sentence is breathtaking: in essence 'If you disagree with us you might get punished more'. One suspects the cases they refer to are FPNs unrelated to travel for exercise and would be deliberately misleading; FPNs issued in Derbyshire for exercise travel were all withdrawn.

Just to be clear, I believe the restriction on travel should have been put into law. My concern here is a police force using half truths to threaten people who are not breaking the law. If the note explained the risk of travel and politely asked to follow the guidance then I would have no issue.

There are restrictions on movement https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made you may be thinking of restrictions on travel.

It can apply to exercise, it has been applied to exercise.

How is it misleading? If you challenge a fpn in court you might end up paying more.

Aye, but you haven't pointed out the lies or half-truths.

+1 from me.

The delightful people in Westminster didn't have the courage to make clear rules to follow (just wiffle/waffle), so we don't know for certain, and the police don't know for certain, so it's open to interpretation. Much better the situation in Scotland (https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-stay-at-home-guidanc...): "local outdoor informal exercise such as walking, cycling, golf, or running (in groups of up to 2 people, plus any children under 12, from no more than 2 households). Exercise can start and finish at a place in your local authority area (or up to 5 miles from its boundary)" so it's clear for all to see.

The law is reasonable excuse to travel.  Should only be problematic for anyone who might be travelling without a reasonable excuse.

I think you're rather missing the point. Should the police be threatening the public with deceitful notes? I think not.

NB Thanks for the reply and we'll agree to differ as these debates become rather circular.

But you have failed to point out how it is deceitful.

No problem, I was just curious to see what you thought was a lie.

Yes this!

It doesn't matter what you or I think about how far you can/should go to exercise, but interpreting the law anyway they want and threatening people is not the Police's job.

It's worth noting though that the NPCC clarified this:

https://www.derbyshire.police.uk/news/derbyshire/news/news/forcewide/2021/j...

UK Government guidance strongly requests that people do not leave their local area. However, the Covid Regulations which officers enforce and which enables them to issue FPNs for breaches, do not restrict the distance travelled for exercise.

Not my words, before anyone accuses me of being a blackout-breaking criminal — they are the words of the people who 'bring police forces in the UK together to help policing coordinate operations, reform, improve and provide value for money'.

So it begs the question: why are some police forces listening to this coordinating authority, and some are flagrantly ignoring it? It's no wonder people are acting in such different ways when the official line is...nonexistent, to put it politely.

A number of posts here show what a set of lily-livered wazzacks we have in Westminster who are not prepared to stand up and say something like 'you must not travel more than X miles for exercise' or 'local means no more than X miles'.

I would have liked the NPCC say to government, "It is your job to be clear about what you mean by 'local', not our job to interpret it"

I do not agree with people travelling large distances for exercise but it would be good if someone given an FPN for travelling to far under the COVID regulations challenged it in court and used the NPCC guidance quoted above as a reason why they should not pay.

Dave

But doesn't reg 8.3, give the police powers to ask people to move on?

It does appear to, yes.

Maybe you shouldn't post a photo of this on the internet with the person's car registration clearly visible. There are privacy issues here, with this person becoming identifiable.

They do, but I don't think the assumption that that would have been better in England is a safe one.  Very few people have been taking the piss, and there's nothing to say they wouldn't have ignored 'x miles from home' exactly the same way they ignored 'reasonable'.  The downside of a rigid rule is that it inevitably throws up anomalies, there are *always* borderline cases.  It might be 'reasonable' to overstep at x+0.1km and it's certainly possible to take the piss at x-0.1km.

The 'reasonable' gives the police room to exercise their discretion, and again in the overwhelming majority of cases they've got it right.  As you would expect - they have to interpret the meaning of the word 'reasonable' as they go about their business all the time, and always have.  (As in, for example "reasonable suspicion".)

It's such a strange thing to focus on, this, when we're talking about the failures of the 'lily-livered wazzacks in Westminster'.  These are trivial details of the latest lockdown and (deja-vu) the previous ones compared to the fact they were reluctantly imposed too late, and an blind eye was very publicly turned to the wazzacks' wealthy chums and their families ignoring them completely.  Track and trace was, and continues to be, an utter farce.  (A very lucrative one for some.)  The app, same.  PPE, same.  Rishi Sunak's "Eat Out to Help Spread It About" scheme in the summer, and the full 15 verses of the Education Hokey-Cokey.

And now hotel quarantine for incoming international travellers supposedly beginning Monday morning, a full year late, and as of last thing Friday night the immigration officials still had no idea how the new system is supposed to work.*

In spite of the way the Dominic Cummings affair pissed our good will away, compliance with the current lockdown is still really very good.  People are not taking the piss, by and large, and the police are getting their enforcement about right almost all the time.  We are bickering here, in terms of the old cliche, about whether the deckchairs could have been arranged better on the deck of the Titanic.

*Edit to add: link..  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/12/uk-immigration-officials-have...

If its in a public place then you have almost no rights to privacy or prevent photography of a person or persons or anything else in a public place.

I think you're right but does anyone know why,on TV reports, licence plates or faces are often pixelated? If you are fair game out in public why do this?

I think that it can prejudice a jury in theory to have had the accused identified in the media.  Might be talking rubbish of course !

I think you're right, but perhaps it's also about protecting people from harassment and abuse (and about potential civil liabilities for the media) that might arise from making a person's identity public.

Same as the blanket over the head routine at trials

I agree there are many, which you have summarised, much greater examples of the wazzackry of the current crew.

I hope these will be remembered come the next election, but I suspect there will be a huge concentration on how Bois and the Government have got us out of the pandemic and how wonderful their vaccine programme was and they will ignore all of the points you have made.

I reckon a rigid rule could work for distance to exercise and police could use their judgement, as they do with people exceeding the speed limit, but everyone would know what they must or must not do.

Dave 

This DC episode marked a change in lockdown.

I'm not sure how much effect the Cummings 'example' directly had on peoples behaviour. Those that were going to follow the rules continued and those that didn't had an 'excuse'.

It did upset people, and the attempted defence of someone who was seen to be above the rules  was defended.

What I think was corrosive about this episode for COVID management was that the government message changed significantly. People (Chief Nurse for one) who didn't support his behaviousr were sidelined. The government were so desperate to defend their 'leader' they were prpared to change their public health stance.

The Real message is one of thanks to the post-war Labour government who set up the NHS - that really has helped us survive the damage done by the disastrous responses and decisions of the Brexit-Klan

I reckon your analogy with the speed limit for distance to exercise is "nail" and "head".  Sensible Sturgeon in Scotland (in this case) has one (local authority +5 miles).  Waste-of-space Wazzocks (in this case) in Westminster failed miserably on this count.

But there are anomalies where some folks in Highland Scotland are legally allowed to drive tens of miles to exercise (and do) and others are almost hemmed into the city they happen to live in.

I know... it’s a postcode lottery, but at least we can do something now. My legal activities would get the purity spiral raging and possibly be fine fodder down south. In the Summer it was a pig, 8km meant nearly every accessible place was closed if you you followed the rules on grounds of crowds. No hills either. Now at least I have the Lammermuirs, only yesterday I could not get near them because of the weather.....   

Now it is easy to avoid people.

I've wondered about that too, but I think  GrahamD & deepsoup have have a plausible explanation.

This anomaly is why I think the rule for Scotland should be changed to something like, "you must not travel more than X(could be 10,15,20) miles for exercise", and the X miles could be within or outwith person's local authority.

As you say someone in Highland can legally travel hundreds of miles to exercise and while the population density of Highland is so low the chances of meeting lots of other people is very small, but the further someone travels the greater the chance.

As someone who lives in one of the most densely populated local authorities in the UK I don't think there are any authorities where someone cannot find somewhere to exercise and keep their distance from others. I manage easily, it is not where I would choose to take a walk but it is certainly possible.

Dave 

You don’t need an ANPR camera to read a registration plate and enter it into a computer 

I''m on holiday this week. So should I buzz up to the Lake District for a bit of soloing of deteriorating cold climbs?

I presume that I would be chucked back just beyond Chester, and roughly where the Firth melds in with Gretna Green.

I did think about this.  It's a car, not a person.  In a public place.  The car had attracted the attention of the police.  It would be interesting to know how the person would become identifiable.  And as someone else elsewhere pointed out, the MOT on the car is apparently overdue (https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/), so the car may be illegal.  Maybe the car shouldn't have drawn attention to itself.