UKH

I'll wait patiently for the libertarians to tell me why this is the fault of the police again.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/03/derbyshire-police-pan-stupi...

Don't know about the police but the reporting is Bollocks.

"Derbyshire is in English tier 4, meaning people must not travel outside their local area for exercise."

This for a start...

Except that's exactly what is said in the guidance. There is no legal action involved here.

The actual guidance (though not law) is very strict indeed, probably excessively so - "must not travel outside your own town, village or part of city" - this even precludes the very reasonable act of going for a walk from Hathersage if you lived there onto Stanage, to use an early example.

One of us is being particularly hard of thinking here. I suspect it's you.

If the reporting says you can't do something you can do, how is that accurate reporting?

If the reporting did, it might, but it didn't and that wasn't what I asked.

Give it a rest FFS... 

The reporting does but you can. Sorry you've lost me. 

It says you can't. You can. 

Tell you what. This threads yours. Fill your boots.

Give what a rest? Pointing out the inaccuracies in the reporting?

You want to be lied to that's up to you. I don't.

And kids must not run in the corridor at school.  But presumably there is no law against it.

Society only works when people follow rules and don't need to test the law at every step.

Genuine question, and I don't want to start a pile on (think you've mentioned that you've had or are having a tough time of it late): you would, surely, concede that Tier 4 is that for a very good reason. And that what has been proved in some other countries to great effect, and has happened here when compliance was better, is that stopping people in highly infectious areas from moving out of that area has to be a good thing, no?

If that was the biggest thing you took from the article it just shows how obsessed you are with this 'legal' definition or whatever you want to call it.....its boring mate. 

Riiiight, because it's exactly the same situation as them filming socially distanced dog walkers causing no harm to anyone whatsoever with their drone isn't it.

Funny, I didn't think you particularly approved of trolling on here.

"They also asked people to tell them if they managed to make their own way to safety after calling for assistance.

The request, however, appears to have fallen on deaf ears. The team’s first callout of 2021 came on New Year’s Day, when two men rang for help at 9.30pm having got lost on Bleaklow after a visit to the B-29 crash site.

“When team members reached Snake Summit they found a vehicle with two male occupants in, which turned out to be the two that had reported themselves lost!” the Glossop team wrote."

“It seems like many didn’t have the common sense to check the forecast, dress themselves suitably, check they had a capable vehicle and/or driving skills, never mind the fact that they perhaps shouldn’t have been stretching the advice given by the government so as not to overburden our NHS,” the rural crime team wrote.

“Never mind, though. Just ring the police and expect them to come along with their magical snowmobiles. Of course, with our superpowers we can simultaneously deal with similar situations in the Goyt Valley, Mam Nick, Curbar Gap and others. And we’re Covid-proof, didn’t you know? Joking aside, please don’t be stupid. It shouldn’t need a greater explanation than that.”"

You don't think this puts people in the 'being a bit of a dick category' and need calling out on it?

Of course I do.  I think you read my post precisely backwards.  Though I'm not sure the 'calling out on it' that the Derbyshire force have opted for in this article is particularly helpful.  I don't know if the snarky and sarcastic tone of their comments are particularly conducive to getting the message across to those who actually need to hear it, but I'm not a psychologist and could be wrong.  Generally I prefer the rather more classy way the MRTs usually express their frustrations faced with having to rescue people in the 'being a bit of a dick' category.

Conversely, back in the relatively early days of the first lockdown, I didn't think people driving out to Froggatt or Curbar from Sheffield to walk their dog or watch the sunset without ever once coming within 2m (or rather more) of another person were doing any harm.  I wouldn't have been comfortable doing that myself, but when the Derbyshire police tried to 'shame' those people by posting drone footage on their social media accounts I very much thought it was the police who were making the 'dick move' at the time.

Offwidth and I argued about it at some length at the time on a thread that no longer exists.  (Either it was in the pub to begin with or the mods moved it there to die after it turned into a car crash.)  The OP is clearly trolling me, among others that he was bickering with at the time, as well as looking to get a bite out of Oceanrower and stoke their recent wrangle up again.

Shit stirring aside,  I was out in the Peak somewhat closer to Sheff this afternoon and the numbers of people out and about were absolutely extraordinary.  Where I was I'd have considered it unusually busy for a sunny summer bank-holiday weekend.  I've never seen anything remotely like it when the weather was so poor.  I can only assume it's what happens when people who've made new year's resolutions aren't going to the gym, the swimming pool or whatever.  The air ambulance passed overhead while I was out.  Wouldn't surprise me if it's been an extraordinarily tough weekend for the MRTs.

People were really taking the piss yesterday. Reports of huge numbers of cars parked up at Snake Summit, despite heavy snow being forecast. Forget whether it is presently legal or not, that's just stupid, pandemic or not. Suspect few were local too as they'd mostly know better.

Obviously there's a difference between could and should. Regardless of whether they could legally be there, they probably shouldn't have been. Bear in mind Peak MRTs had 205 more callouts last year too, many avoidable, yet lost most of their fundraising ability.

Common sense is lacking at the moment.

Well it isn't classy but I think it is probably deserved.  I doubt it will have much effect but maybe it helped the person writing it to air their frustration.  

The tone of the article isn't so good, the pool was dyed because of the PH of the water, and it being a little bit full of junk, rather than anything covid related.

Wasn't the first time either. Never quite understood the uproar about that. Even Lord Sumption claimed the police were interfering with a beauty spot. Interesting term for a quarry full of rubbish.

Not sure how I read wrong but maybe I did. Though I'm definitely a fan of the Police doing their thing with the engagement etc at some point, and it sounds like it did on this occasion, the patience snaps. And at that point a chuff needs to be called a chuff. None of this is new and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. 

I'd agree with you on this under the guidance at the time. (What I'd wished for then in terms of guidance/rules/law at that time has long gone). 

Ah, didn't realise I'd walked in on a bar room brawl. 

Tough weekend indeed. 

I often lament the fact that there isn't a specific law that covers "being a dick". 

We could have something like jury duty, maybe 100 randomly selected people who do a week sitting in judgment of anyone who is looking at a fine under the law of don't be a dick. A simply yes / no question, was this person being a dick, more than 50% vote yes they are fined. 

I'm glad there isn't. I'm skint! 

Agreed. It would solve the majority of societies issues.

"Members of the Jury, the defence has presented a compelling and technically correct explanation that the accused is in fact not guilty in law. However it should be perfectly clear to anyone who has heard the circumstances of the case and witnessed the accused's behaviour in court that he is indeed a 24 carat, copper-bottomed, ocean-going dick. The prosecution rests".

Yeah, it's terrible, isn't it, all those other people getting out and about...? Extraordinary...

Yes, I'm a massive hypocrite.  Well spotted, have a gold star you frikkin mook.

I didn't know that, it's just annoying when the truth gets mangled as part of a narrative or an agenda.

Our searches for a better life rely upon truthfulness, or something like that...

Believe it was done both in 2013 and 2016 after people kept swimming in it and suffered skin issues. It's supposed to have a ph similar to bleach. It's not even the police that did it, it was the council along with the fire brigade, with support from locals each time.

I think it's more that there's NOTHING ELSE TO DO! I'm seeing a lot of people out walking who don't look as if it would normally be their first choice for a cold day in January. Also, outdoors feels normal, whereas any limited indoor things you can do, like buy giant jars of peanut butter, are fraught with all that mask-wearing, arrow-following, proximity- avoiding otherness. Outdoors has never felt busier but at least it still feels like freedom.

based on the rapid spread of the virus, or something else?

At the risk of making a not very original observation, what is it that makes it okay for you to be out, but not everyone else?

Deepsoup can no doubt defend themselves and for clarity I'd have you all locked in your houses and only allowed out on a rota basis! (Only kidding... Just).

Geographically bits of the Peak are in Sheffield which is still, just, Tier 3. So they're allowed out as much as the guidance allows (which isn't law anyway - that one's for Oceanrower 😉).

I think it's the paradigm of what should happen at a nebulous border (Sheffield/Derbyshire) between Tiers 3&4. Assuming deepsoup was Tier 3 side as suggested with the somewhat closer to Sheffield comment. 

I agree with you....nothing better than seeing people of all ages outside,particularly parents with young kids.👍.

It's sensible to stay reasonably local, but little is gained from a rule that doesn't even technically allow you to walk out of your village through nearby countryside.

I would suggest that the guidance should be that exercise should start and end at home unless there is a good safety reason or similar (e.g. for people who live on roads with no pavement), in which case driving should be minimised.  Driving from London to the Peak is clearly not right, but it's silly to have people cycling around busy urban roads when they can go out into the countryside.

How is the border nebulous? 

What's you cut-off distance for local, and does that mesh with other people's idea of what's local? Who has the right answer?

Sounds like another case of bending the rules to suit what the person involve wants to do.

deepsoup was very careful to not actually pass any judgement on the other people that were out and about. Their post simply states that there were a lot of them. 

I'm with Dax on the don't be a dick law, which is sort of covered by the 'golden rule' which Lord Denning used to great effect. Denning's stated view was that he would decide who was being a dick, and then interpret the law in order to come up with the right verdict.

Bit worried at this point about whether poster Denning76 is in fact ...

As I said, I think it would be sensible that for most people, except where it would be unsafe, exercise starts and ends from home, i.e. a car is not used for that purpose and all time out of the house is spent exercising or necessarily resting.

You can never be absolute on the exception, because it will depend on where you live and what your limitations are.  That's why we have professional Police and the judiciary if necessary.

Agreed, its the same everywhere.  We headed for a quiet local walk on our edge of Dartmoor. OK the honeypot bits were crazy busy (Haytor etc) and to be avoided,  but even spots we would normally have to ourselves were rammed with cars. And the parking,  blocking lanes, trashing verges etc was pretty awful. We were pretty early so it was quiet when we set off at least. 

It is indeed all about folk having no pubs etc to hide in and walking outside seeming to be a small escape from the restrictions. 

If we go back over the next few weeks it will be for a predawn walk and an early finish before the masses arrive. 

I honestly had zero intention of attacking you. I linked the Derbyshire dog walk threads on the other thread (the ones that you say were a car crash) and I thought you were pretty sensible. Did we disagree...sure... but it seemed minor to me. I can't judge exactly how useful the police messages are (and neither can you) but they are not anything like affronts to civil liberties in my view as I regard them as being broadly sensible and certainly unfairly attacked with misinformation (the police did act first by talking to many people, and where they were not local, explained why they should not be there). As far as I'm aware no penalty notices were issued on the dog walker incident (or this one). 

The only time I recall you obviously being angry is with my views on dislikes (which won't change so I worry about your sense of proportion in your pretty aggresive and personal comments on the subject..... we are free to hold different views here but not free, under site rules, to make aggresive personal attacks).

On Oceanrower, I agree with him that travel across Tiers is not explicitly illegal. My biggest concerns with his posts were more from earlier threads (like The Derbyshire police threads).

I am seriously angry with our government and the pressure put on them by the libertarian attitudes of backbenchers and commentators in the press.  They are incredibly dangerous with their false assertion that lockdowns should be stopped because they destroy the economy, and with their overblown concerns that they impinge on individual rights. More economic damage happens precisely because restrictions are too weak or too slowly enacted and leave us longer before we can ease them again. The population do get confused by such mixed messages that dillutes the effectiveness of pandemic safety measures.  Balancing minor civil liberties against life and death matters in a pandemic is quite simply inhuman.

It's perfectly possible to apply common sense on such matters.  The Derbyshire police were not naming and shaming individuals they were not issuing penalty notices like confetti, they were and are trying to explain rules and guidance.

Scotland's legislation for its higher tiers actually proscribes travel outside your area (I think there's a plus 5 miles bit), but it is clearly defined.

So why doesn't English legislation? Presumably Boris is worried that too many of the dickhead MPs in his party will bleat about loss of liberties etc.

Dying from Covid (or anything else for that matter) results in losing significantly more liberties than from a bit of legislation.

Agreed. Hopefully the people involved that were out of Tier will take the hint. 

Relevant to the border at say somewhere like Moscar, apart from the Sheffield/Derbyshire sign, there is little else on the ground. Is stepping a few metres over from Tier 3 into Tier 4 a bad thing? Coughing and spluttering on some other person aside, probably not.

But that is where the slide or bending the guidance starts. Complying with the guidance for a lot of us on such borders doesn't appear to make sense. So I have some sympathy with that view (though my line in the sand is I won't cross into Tier 4 because then it's easy to start making bigger exceptions). Travelling from Sheffield up to the Snake Top is taking the piss though. 

Our village is on a cycle route from Exeter to the coast. The track itself is a place to avoid at weekends as there are hundreds of people on it every day.

The guy who runs the coffee van in the carpark must be looking forward to retirement on his huge wedge of cash earned over the last 9 months!

Gosh, that really isn't a very original observation, even on this very thread (captain paranoia beat you to it by about 3 1/2 hours.)

Ok though, I'll bite.

As Blue was kind enough to point out, I wasn't saying it's not ok for everyone else to be out. 
(Nor was I specifically saying it was ok for me, for that matter.)

I came in to this thread specifically to react against the judgemental tone of the OP. 
(To paraphrase it says "Look at these pricks in the paper today, those pricks walking their dogs at Curbar back in April were just as bad." and I didn't like that.)

Regarding them:
I'm with Alyson.  It was actually really nice to see so many people out enjoying a bit of fresh air, albeit a tad baffling that they were out in fairly horrible weather in numbers vastly greater than were out on much nicer days a couple of weeks back.  In terms of Covid and 'social distancing', I saw absolutely nothing at any point during the day that caused me any concern whatsoever.

Quite a few of the people I saw weren't brilliantly dressed or equipped for the conditions.  (Neither was I, by judgemental rambler standards, as I was out for a run and not carrying a pack.)  For the vast majority of them that wasn't a problem.  Anyone similarly equipped heading up on to Bleaklow or Kinder yesterday might easily have got themselves into real trouble though, hence my musing that it was probably a tough weekend for the MRTs.  (That and the air ambulance passing overhead while I was out there.)

I was mildly concerned about the well-being of one family I passed up near the Redmires reservoirs.  Granny was clearly struggling a bit and maybe she was tougher than she looked but it struck me that a slip and fall on the ice could have been very serious for her.  They were all wearing their masks in the stiff breeze, so obviously wouldn't have welcomed any attempt to help from the sweaty, wheezy maskless mess that is me out for my, what I like to call, 'run'.  Not that I could've done much anyway.

Hopefully they didn't have far to go to get back to the car, but it was far enough from the road over tough enough terrain that a conventional ambulance crew would have needed mountain rescue to carry anyone to the roadside who couldn't walk.

The way a few people had parked their cars when they'd presumably arrived to find the little car park at the top of Wymingbrook was, let's say, not ideal.  It might actually have been quite difficult for an ambulance to get round to the end of the road where it meets the Stanage Causeway.

And whichever three individuals, a miniscule minority of the hundreds and hundreds of walkers, dropped the two disposable masks and the Monster Munch packet I picked up on the way round can just get in the f*cking sea.

Regarding me:
I might have fallen into a bit of a heuristic trap being there.  I was running a loop I've done many, many times over many years that serves as a sort of a benchmark for where I'm at, fitness wise.  I went out wanting to do it on Saturday morning but had to move on to plan B, then plan C and finally plan D as I found car parks full.  Yesterday I was able to park easily where I usually do and having failed to start the day before was particularly keen to get round. 

It's quite unusual for there to be such a dramatic change in conditions over a mere 100m odd of ascent just there, it was really striking yesterday how it went from relatively mild at the bottom of the valley to really quite harsh up on the moor.  In retrospect I was a bit under-equipped myself.  Really should have been carrying a pack and would have moved quicker, more easily and more safely over the frozen moor if I'd had a set of Microspikes with me.  It would have been pretty mortifying if I'd been the one in need of Mountain Rescue, but somewhat surprisingly I did manage to never lose my footing at any point.  (I fall over quite a lot while I'm running.  Fortunately I seem to get away with it {insert furious genuflections and touching of wood here}, many years of judo and aikido training in my youth standing me in good stead perhaps.)

Regarding the mooks stranded up on the Snake:
Clearly driving up to the summit of the Snake Pass and getting stranded was a dick move.  Which isn't to say that the people who did that are dickheads all the time, but they certainly did make a pretty stupid mistake on the day.

Regarding the Derbyshire police:
Their snarky and sarcastic statement in that article is also a bit of a dick move.  As above, the people stranded up there had made a pretty stupid mistake but a mistake nonetheless.  Clearly nobody had gone up there intending to need rescuing.  The individual quoted was probably just venting their frustrations which is entirely understandable but best done in private.  A public statement should be thought through a tad more carefully and, ideally, designed to get a message across to the people who need to hear it.

The volunteer mountain rescue teams consistently do brilliantly at this, whereas the police are the ones who are supposedly professionals.

Regarding the 'tier' borders:
I've banged on at length (even longer than this post) about how I don't really see the point in being excessively pedantic about borders - better to follow the sprit of the advice than slavishly stick to the letter of the law imo.  This was mostly recently in a thread where the good burghers of Tier 2 'High Peak' Derbyshire were complaining about we plague rats from Tier 3 Sheffield crossing into their domain, and I haven't changed my mind now that they've leap-frogged us into the higher tier.
(Though I do enjoy the irony that they're the plague rats now.  Temporarily at least - no doubt Sheff will be in Tier 4 as well soon enough.)

For covid tier purposes, a third of the area defined as "Sheffield" is actually inside the Peak District.  The Tier 4 rules don't prohibit a short drive for access to a bit of fresh air and exercise in a pleasant open space, let alone the Tier 3 rules that currently apply.  The city boundary encompasses Blacka, Burbage and Hollow Meadows as well as the Hallam, Strines, Bradfield, Broomhead, Howden and Midhope moors.  Half of the Howden reservoir is even in Sheffield. 

Now that the situation is reversed, is it ok for someone who lives in Tier 4 Bamford to cycle around the Derwent Valley reservoirs, even though they're technically in Tier 3 Sheffield between the pack horse bridge and Abbey Bank below the Howden dam?  Ridiculous question, of course it is.

Not sure it would work that well since everyone will judge by their own standards and hence good chance of getting off.

Dangerous driving convictions are a good example. Lots of cases where people are found not guilty despite seeming to fall beneath the standards required with the most likely explanation being people thinking "would I be any better?" and instead of concluding its time to hand the licence in voting innocent instead.

There is a smallish piece of parkland near me. Its the busiest I have ever seen it despite it being a swamp at this time of year.

Quite.  And more so for those who live closest to the border line obviously.  There are people living in Charnock who can almost literally step out of their back door into NE Derbyshire countryside to walk the dog.  Alternatively they could walk through densely populated areas and/or around the busy ring road to get to Graves Park or the Gleadless Valley nature reserve, or they could drive for miles across town to get access to the 'legitimate' Sheffield slice of the Peak District.

If you live in Jordanthorpe you can walk East in a more or less straight line from your Sheffield doorstep through lovely Derbyshire countryside for about 5km or so before crossing back into Sheffield over a tiny wooden footbridge across a stream in the woods about a mile short of Mosborough.

If one thing should be clear just lately it's that if you randomly select a large number of English people and ask them to collectively make a decision, they're likely to make a really shitty decision.

The other big draw, which I don't think anyone has mentioned yet, is that you can only really meet other people outdoors. I can't go round to a friend's house or meet them at Bragazzis for a coffee but I CAN go for a walk with them. So everyone's social life is now conducted outdoors.

The other day I took my little ones up to a playground with a nice open field behind - which was snow-covered and extra inviting - and there were not one but TWO separate birthday celebrations going on, on two separate picnic tables. Not something you'd normally see at -1 degrees C in Britain.

What would your take on it be if a Tier 3 to 4 border crossing was not allowed full stop for exercise? Not itching for a fight here. Thinking out loud, when should a limit be just that, a limit? In certain circumstances does it have to make sense? 

Arent there some cases with someones house crossing a border? Be an arse if you werent allowed into your garden.

I think it is where the distance restrictions make more sense than just a random border based on a some historical accident. 

Yes because if it doesnt make sense then people are more likely to breach it and they then may apply that approach on a broader and more risky scale.

I think it's self-evident that any border line produces borderline cases, which makes it difficult to have a rigid rule without throwing up anomalies that clearly don't make sense.  But ultimately I think my opinion of it (or anyone else's) is probably irrelevant - it would be widely disregarded and completely unenforceable.  Even, I suspect, in cases of people who were really taking the piss.

We're still largely failing to persuade people to pop a mask on while they're doing the shop in the big Tescos ffs, and completely failing to enforce the rules where people don't want to be persuaded.

I think that's why the Scottish legislation has this 5 mile bit. I'm not sure (I'd have to look at the legislation properly and I haven't got the time ATM), but I think to take advantage of the 5 miles outside your area, you have to start & finish from within your own area. So this would cover walking/running across any boundaries - seems to me a very pragmatic solution.

Maybe boundaries should be policed a la "Running Man" - nobody would cross them then 😁

One other thing about Saturday.... certainly in the Dales the weather forecasts I looked at missed the fact that it was going to snow (BBC, changed as it started to snow), and indeed some of the missed the fact that it was snowing for a while (Accuweather). The forecasts earlier in the morning were a bit odd with quite localised areas showing snow...

(DOI was down a cave with my 'bubble' on Saturday (met no one), also having checked our club hut; Sunday was out caving with a small distanced group (cave chosen carefully )...met one personaway from civilisation - a SARDA member out with his dog - and passed two people walking on the road. Do have a bit of a drive to get there). It is complicated, but I think our default should be be obey the rules or harder and weigh the recommendations carefully - we thought quite hard about the trip.

Not sure if I'll be out again in a group for a while given the way things are going.

Friends photo of the trip.  T3 area and T3 residents, well spaced (chose the cave with care) throughout the day.

I'm not sure how many, but yes, presumably there might be some. I guess in that very small number of cases they either get ignored or written out of the law, or maybe choose a side.

Wouldn't a distance distinction fall foul of 'unfairness' just as easily by the same accident of geography?

The government have been drip feeding us the notion of tighter restrictions so I thought I'd delve into the SAGE recommendations driving that. It's not an easy read but where exercise was indirectly mentioned there is mention of limiting event duration. So maybe time limits? 

I was thinking rather more about those who live on a border. If I live 10km away then that's a big leap to justify. 100m away less of a leap but still a leap none the less. It might not make sense re: transmission but at what point, if we're saying that a border does indeed exist, that it shouldn't be crossed.

And what happened on Snake Top is in essence what you describe above. They did breach it because maybe for them it didn't make sense, until of course it was pointed out to them. Maybe it needs more clarification or the legislation tightening up. 

I'm sort of with you on this one, but "except where it would be unsafe" is an other variable people would have trouble judging. Some people think everywhere and everything is safe, because it's all made up!

While I think we are sloppy with borders (there being a small part of MK in Northants, for example) this case doesn't really exist, because the location of your house as far as this sort of thing is concerned is where the front door is.

There can't be many where the boundary goes right down the middle of that.  If there are there's a bit of a "de minimis" thing going on, though you could deal with that in the legislation by placing any such house in the higher tier.

True.  The trouble with going absolute on it is that you've got people who live in houses on main roads with no pavement, or disabled people who live in a street where everyone parks all over the pavement, and both of those probably need to be able to drive a short distance to somewhere safe.

Setting up a system that results in some people not being able to exercise is likely to increase risk due to obesity.  I know well myself how quickly weight can be gained if you're used to being very active and end up being barely able to walk up the stairs for a month and not being able to do much more than lap the block once for a further month (in my case because of a medical issue).  Yes, "eat less", but people don't work like that.

Nice photo - which pot is it?

That's a beauty, five stars from me.

Long Kin East, on The Allotment.

Thanks. Done it a few times but many years ago. The exchange with Rift is an absolute classic.

The legislation is quite clear in that if ANY part of your property (including garden, outbuildings, etc) is in a "higher" tier, then the whole property is considered to be in the "higher" tier.

Must be a bugger if you've got a large country estate and a higher tier just cuts the corner 😁 - I should be so lucky.

Indeed. I think it was something a friend shared on facebook, about it not being helpful for thinner people to tell overweight people it's bad for their health, which set me thinking about truthfulness, and that being important in trying to live better. Something in the blurb he'd shared was inaccurate, and underplayed a health outcome observed, and I started to point that out, and he jumped on me for doing exactly what the thing he'd shared was pointing out isn't a helpful thing to do, but that wasn't my point, which was more that it's not responsible to share untruths about things which are health related, but that got lost in the general noise. I'm the last person (as somebody who isn't overweight) to point out how unhealthy it can be to somebody who is heavier - in a 'You know it's bad for your health?' way, but the thing he shared which underplays the potential risks is probably still being shared on facebook, maybe helping to make people more chilled than they otherwise might be.

I dunno what this has to do with the Guardian journalist inaccurately portraying Derbyshire police but it sparked a link in the back of my mind.  I guess it could help set some Derbyshire people against their own police in a way which mightn't happen otherwise, or other people. With the internet to hand, it's not that difficult to be truthful, given enough googling. 

Edit: End of rant.

I think if you have a large country estate the rules dont apply...

Doesn't need to be large but has to be in County Durham and within "visible" distance of Barnard Castle 😁

This is the problem with campaigns like those from the police in Derbyshire and North Wales. They are focusing resources and publicity on something that has next to no effect on transmission. That attention should have been spent (from the very beginning) on education and enforcement where it makes a difference i.e workplaces, schools, shops, residences.

If it's not "visible" just drive towards it till it is.

That and house parties.  Perhaps even going round houses knocking on doors if they look to have too many people in them for the size of the house.

That was what I meant by residences; more specifically, people meeting in private residences.

Yes but the travel thing is just one part of the measures. Today on TV I heard consultant in critical care say that anyone who disobeys any of the rules absolutely has blood on their hands. The unit staff were exhausted. Today coming from the top of Burbage to Stanage car park (physio appointment) there were 5 cars in the ditch on the hill, 4 of which were 4x4,s and the one I had to speak to in a Landcruiser, as they were nearly blocking the road, was “trying it out in the snow and ice”People have to come out to retrieve them in close proximity. And had some of then been to a seething mass for the sales at Meadowhall in the previous week?. That’s how viruses spread exponentially.

You had a physio appointment in Stanage car park?!

I agree driving on icy roads for fun sounds like classic covidiot stuff but why you were safe on that road again?

Misrepresentation again. Derbyshire police had complaints from locals so had to go and talk to people at Curbar Gap and at the Blue Lagoon. Such advertising was to try and discourage les autres and try to save wasting more police time. 

Is it not possible to drive past the car park on route to the appointment?

It still made them look stupid.

I find it strange that driving on icy roads for fun can be dismissed as "classic covidiot stuff" on a forum where half the participants probably own ice tools and crampons.

I doubt many UK based climbers are ice climbing right now Tom and you don't see multiple casualties every time you go to a winter honeypot. 

Lets say despite our differences on climbing risk aversion I wouldn't use that road in such conditions. I stayed on it once by what felt like sheer luck after I hit black ice and counter steered round consecutive snowy bends at a strange angle to the road, despite low speed. I felt like a complete idiot and I only faced wrecking my car and minor injury. In a pandemic where you don't want to be mixing with rescue units or risk ending up in A&E, multiple cars in the ditch are a perfect illustration how we can be stupid in assessing risk away from familiar terrain.

My point is that, outside of Covid, people get their kicks from all sorts of activities and driving vehicles in adverse conditions is as entertaining to some people as climbing frozen waterfalls is to others. If you accept that anyone who is found outdoors with an iceaxe and crampons at the moment is also a covidiot then we're in agreement. 

I'm not the one unfairly linking several 4x4s in a ditch with serious off roaders. One of my climbing partners used to be involved in Landover challenges and was frustrated how idiot drivers often blocked the local roads around Sheffield and Chesterfield at the first sign of snow.

Making a bad judgement call in your 4x4 in the snow is the same thing as making a bad judgement call  on a Scottish (or even Derbyshire ) hill in the snow. There are idiots out on the hill as well as on the roads but simply making an error of judgement  doesn't qualify you as  one.

That's just not true Tom the idiots with 4x4s out stuck in the snow around Sheffield are the equivalents of foolish unprepared ascents on Mount Snowden that go wrong en masse at times due to bad weather.

What people forget about 4x4s is that while they move easier than conventional cars they have exactly the same braking system - all cars have brakes on all 4 wheels.  So if a BMW 5 series can't stop and ends up in a ditch as a result, so will a Range Rover.

Said 5 series will with winter tyres brake better than said Rangie without, for instance.

(I have misjudged things and ended up going sideways in a Defender before...)

I think you're making a lot of assumptions and trying to pass them off as facts. I can't tell you what's true or not about the circumstances of people being stuck in the snow in a car or having to be rescued off the hills: I'm just offering an opinion about what constitutes "idiocy" in some of its many forms.

Its a fact the roads seem to block around Sheffield every time the snow is bad. My pals who are 4x4 fanatics or use them for off-road work feel the same way about there being way too many idiots.

This is the worst part of the pandemic yet, and this looks like blatent recreational covidiocy, as in mountaineering terms do those people fined after being rescued from the Buachaille. Yes it's possible I may be wrong and one of those 4x4s belongs to an unlucky local farmer.... but  I wouldn't fancy your odds in a bet

I guess this is probably a rhetorical question, but just in case it isn't here's a factual answer..

It's en-route between Hathersage and Sheffield.  You'd generally consider that to be the 'scenic route' but it's actually slightly shorter (in distance, probably not in time) than the main road.  It's often sketchy at times in winter though, as that road isn't routinely gritted and it's a very low priority for snow clearance.  (I think it did eventually get a visit from the snowploughs in 2010.)

Probably because a high percentage of 4x4 owners are not only incapable of driving anywhere but the likes of the school run - assuming you regard going up and over pavements as "driving" - but also have low profile summer tyres - which effectively wipes out any advantage 4-wheel drive gives them (and might even make them worse).

I was trying to bypass incredibly slow stop start moving traffic in the snow on the main road when I nearly messed up. You can't sensibly brake on those downhill bendy bits when traction has gone so it felt like waiting for inevitable disaster in slow motion when counter-steerring against the slide in low gear. I was very lucky not to crash nor meet anyone else. I was an idiot.

I'm agreeing in part: if you classify anyone caught out in their 4x4  as idiots then it's only fair that you should extend that description to anyone caught out on the hills.. ... even though some of those  caught out in the latter situation will have been  taking the advice given by the more vocal independent minded UKC contributors that it's a matter for individuals to make their own risk assessment and follow their own judgement rather than adhering to blanket rules.

I just disagree about the terminology. People who make errors in judgement are not necessarily idiots in my book.

I wouldn't classify someone as an idiot simply because they bought a car whose tyres might not be up to the job in extreme circumstances. Most people tend to trust manufacturers to sell them a product which is fit for purpose. It doesn't make them idiots.

"Idiot" is a bit strong, but you do need to know the capabilities of your vehicle, and that does mean choosing not to drive in certain circumstances if your vehicle isn't up to the job.

I don't know the capabilities of my vehicle because I've never put it to the test. 

As you say. "idiot" is a bit strong, which is where I came in.

Fair point, I more meant "you stick to within what you are sure your vehicle can do".  Certainly I've not tried how mine performs at 120mph, for example.

Yes, I agree: that's what annoys me about petrolheads talking about a car's acceleration in terms of "that vital second might make all the difference in an overtaking manoeuvre".

If it's down to a second 's margin I don't want to be in the passenger seat.

Fear not, I'm not that nutter of a judge. Did inspire the name though...

I classify anyone as an idiot who uses low profile summer road tyres on a 4x4 vehicle and then expects the vehicle to perform in the same way as if they had full blown winter or off-road tyres which are full size.

For information I also classify anyone as an idiot who drives a 4x4 with ABS etc. on ice in the same manner that they would drive on a dry road in summer - 4x4 and ABS DO NOT mean steering and braking are the same as in warm and dry conditions.

Anyone who doesn't understand the limitations of their vehicle, especially in poor road conditions, is an accident waiting to happen - and the worst of it is that they could well injure/maim/kill some poor innocent, as well as causing excess work for our (especially currently) overworked emergency services and blocking roads for potentially hours.

I'll say it again - I don't know the limitations of my vehicle because I've never put it to the test.

I've never tried to do 0-60 in the fastest time, or 50-70. I've never driven at its maxuimum speed. I've never tested it in the snow to see how good the 4 Motion is , though I have been in a few wet fields. 

So in terms of practical experience, I don't knw the limitations of my vehicle because I 've never pushed it. If that makes me an accident waiting to happen it's been an awfully long wait. 

 How would you suggest I find out the actual limitations of my vehicle in the snow?

I'm not talking about pushing a vehicle to it's limits, and I don't believe you honestly do either.

But drivers should have some idea of where and when they CAN'T used their vehicles due to both their personal and their vehicles limitations. If they're uncertain, then the public highway is most definitely NOT the place to find out, especially during a pandemic when NHS and Ambulance personnel and facilities are stretched at (or beyond) their limits.

As I said, I haven't actually driven my current car in much snow. I don't know its capabilities but I don't think its right to call people idiots who want to find out.

A friend of mine used to drive buses in Edinburgh, one of his favourite parts of the job was the yearly practice on an icy skid pan  where they were encouraged to go to the limits of a double decker bus on ice.

Depends how they find out. Driving a few miles from home to practice on a hilly, ice bound country road with ditches either side is pretty stupid. Most people will have empty car parks and hardstanding close to home to practice on.

Yes of course. They could also test their crampons and ice axes in the same car park.

Don't be stupid, you need a frozen playground slide for that..

I used to test my skid limits on unfamiliar cars when the roads got a bit dodgy, on safe bits of road I haste to add.

Don't bother so much these days now I'm an old fart. 😐

Whenever we get a long icy/snowy period I try and have a play on an empty supermarket car park. Helps me relearn steering into a skid, longer stopping distances, etc.

The first thing to do when you've bought a car is to digest some of the essential points  in the manual. One of these is that summer tyres are not suitable for winter conditions: most manufacturers recommend changing over tires when temperatures are consistently below 7 C.  So anyone who buys a car with summer tyres and "trusts" these are suitable for winter is either lazy (because they haven't read the manual) or an idiot.

And what proportion of the car driving population actually change over to winter tyres  when the temperatures fall below that point?

Edit: according to the tyre industry, 95% of motorists drive on summer tyres throughout the year.

That makes most of the population lazy idiots, by your reckoning.

depends where you live, here almost everybody changes their tyres or drives on winter tyres all year - but I live in the Alps. But I used to live in Strathspey where far fewer used winter tyres but many more than 5%. I suspect in Cornwall almost nobody uses winter tyres.

I think if you ignore the manufacturers recommendations for how to use any piece of equipment that can cause grievous bodily harm, I think it is irresponsible. (I was being generous by saying lazy.) In many countries, it is illegal to be driving on unsuitable tyres in winter conditions.

I can believe the statistic that 95% of British drivers don't bother to change to winter tyres, but what proportion of drivers actually take their cars out on the road in conditions that are unsuitable for the conditions? Is it really that high?

Can't be more than a tiny percentage as you need to be stupid and wealthy to potentially write-off multiple vehicles, with the repair/replacement and increased insurance costs. I don''t understand why Tom is flogging this dead horse.  I'm sticking with a cluster of vehicles in a ditch, on a small stretch of road, given the current pandemic situation, are almost certainly covidiots.

Derbyshire's finest are at it again!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

Ah yes, the old liquid picnic trick, how devious! 

I'm obviously less judgemental than some. 

As I said before, if you classify the motorists in the ditch needing to be recovered the same  as the people  needing to be rescued in Glencoe the other day, I agree with you.

Where we disagree is in calling them idiots. I'm sticking with everyone's allowed a mistake now and then.

Sounds like Derbyshire police are on a real power trip. the contact with the officers was by far the riskiest part of the whole thing. 

I truly hope this is challenged in court. We cannot have a situation where the Judiciary can act on the unlegislated opinions the the Executive.

I think where we actually disagree is you can be an idiot and still deserve forgiveness. I was clear I was absolutely an idiot once on that same road. In this pandemic I wouldn't be anywhere near such a snowed up road even if I was local...I try to avoid driving on the hazardous-in-snow hill out of my cul-de-sac. As as experienced as I am on snow I still make mistakes but more importantly I can't control other drivers and I would be 'gutted' if someone was hospitalised right now in an avoidable slow motion snowy crash.

I support locals climbing and hillwalking (and driving to somewhere local to do this when road conditions are OK) for careful social distanced exercise within the guidelines.

How about this one...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

This kind of policing is fuel for the looney libertarians who think even wearing a mask is comparable to Hitler.

Reminiscent of Constable Savage...

youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y&

You're not quite making sense (it's the judiciary who would interpret any grey areas in the legislation - the police are using their interpretation which sounds like they're taking the guidance into account - I suppose you could construe the guidance as the "unlegislated opinions of the Executive").

Regardless, I do agree that this should be challenged in court. It's not like they've travelled 50 miles, 5 miles is local if you're not a city dweller.

Why were the police in a "gathering" there?

those officesrs should be read their rights and then locked up with Boris Johnson clad only in a leather jockstrap

Good lord.  Is there something about rural police being so bored normally that they take any opportunity for a power trip?

If this is exactly as the BBC reported it (and I know things often aren't, but assuming it is), whoever said that this was a sensible way to enforce needs to lose their job.

It's also exactly what I mean when I talk about Police making things worse by discrediting themselves.  It is clear that they were not breaking the law (the 5 mile drive might be contrary to the spirit of the guidelines, but the Police's job is to enforce the law, not guidelines, as if the guidelines were supposed to be enforceable they would be law).

Taking a coffee with you on a walk is a picnic?  Seriously, a 4 year old could interpret the law better that that.

This sort of thing is almost as bad as Cummings.

As for this: "Derbyshire Police said: "It is up to each individual officer on a case-by-case basis to decide what is reasonable as the legislation does not proscribe a distance."

Seriously?  As the law does not refer to distance, distance cannot be seen as an enforceable matter.  The law probably should do that, but the Police's job is to enforce the law as it is written, not how they think it should be.

You didn't say 'idiot', you said 'covidiot'.  Do you stand by that?  Does driving on an icy road right now make you a 'covidiot'?

Is it ok for two local people meet to go for a (socially distanced) walk together?  Is it still ok if they each take a hot drink with them?

You didn't comment on DundeeDave's link, which seems about as relevant as it's possible to be on the thread you started about Derbyshire police.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

You and I are obviously never going to agree about the drone thing, or the tone of their statements about the people who (somewhat stupidly) got themselves stranded at the summit of the Snake pass - but don't you think the Derbyshire plod have overstepped just a tad this time?

You could if the law contained anything on the distance from home which would then require Police and judiciary interpretation.  For example, if it said "for exercise in P's local area".  It doesn't.

As it is, it is reasonably necessary to be outside P's home for exercise (stepping onto the public road from your property is the point where this offence would start being committed).  The distance from home doesn't affect whether it is reasonably necessary to take exercise or not.

I don't have any issue with the Police having a chat with them, masked and at 2m distance throughout (I bet they weren't), to ask if they could possibly consider exercising nearer home because the guidance suggested that, and possibly to help them decide on somewhere more suitable (people have been largely going to honeypots because other options don't enter their mind).  But I can't see how the FPNs could stand up in Court and they should not have been issued, and that they have brings the Force into disrepute.

Yes covidiot because of chances of hospitalisation of those in the car and others they might hit and risks with recovery of the car, getting home etc in avoidable circumstances.

I already commented on the other thread (didn't realise until just now there were two with one down the pub): I said I'll hold my judgement until the facts are clear, as it looks a little suspicious.  On the surface (if what the women say is completely true) it looks like a very bad police decision to me, but given the other Derbyshire police examples were misrepresented at first I'll wait.

However, no worries and thanks for checking up on me again mum.

🤣🤣....we've got a special like that round here...started as security at the local supermarket,next traffic warden,then plastic copper.

I was walking with some triple extension ladders  last year and he stopped me and asked what I was up to....

Out walking the dog in first lock down and he came up to me and shone he's torch in my face...I was blinded...

Maybe it's just me...

Call me a libertarian, but isn't the police approach somewhat harsh to say the least. 

The women broke no law, did not come in contact with anyone else (bar the Old Bill ironically!) and were just going for a walk close to home. The likelihood of them spreading the Covid 19 virus is probably about 1 in a quadrillion.

Such a draconian approach also ignores the mental health benefits of outdoor exercise. I know the current situation is difficult for governments, but sometimes the cure can cause more problems than the disease.

I am not at all in favour of breaking the law, but there comes a point where I wonder what motivation said police officers actually had when confronting the women - were they on some kind of authoritarian uniformed power trip, or is there some kind of encouragement (probably in unwritten form) within the profession for carrying out such activity? I have it on good authority from insiders that such revenue-making activities are encouraged by improved promotion prospects for officers who are good at grubbing up fines. As the fictitious "PC Hopper (The Bent Copper)" says while on motorway patrol - "Yes - yellow car! I need one for my '147 break'!". Surely there are more important matters for police to investigate nowadays, given how strapped for resources they are? Does the couple of hundred quid actually go directly into funding police services?

But that's missing the point.  Yes, you think it should be the law, and I can see that argument.  But the fact is that it isn't the law, and therefore the Police should not be enforcing it.  Their job is to enforce the law, not to make it up.

There are plenty of things that are legal but shouldn't be, and plenty more that aren't legal but should be.  A Police Officer can hold such views just as I can.  But their job is to enforce those things that are law (whether they think they should be or not), as well as not to enforce those things that aren't law (again whether they think they should be or not).

We still don't know what happened according to the police officers involved. I've said above if the women are speaking the truth the police took the wrong action.

Here is an example of more appropriate fines from the Derbyshire police:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55551055

Where did I say anything about it should be against the law to drive there when talking about the vehicles in the ditch near Stanage? They are just probably idiot drivers in the time of the most serious period yet in this pandemic. They might be technically guilty of driving without due care and attention but that would need proof.

Oh - sorry! I very much agree with you there.

I do as well.  But I'm very surprised, if there is an error in the women's story, that they didn't state what it was, e.g. that they had got out of their cars and gone straight to a park bench for a chat, for example, and not for a walk.

It seems fishy to me.  Also given that it's Derbyshire that's coming up repeatedly (not just here, in the news too), almost never any other Force (other than one of the Yorkshire ones occasionally, but not this time).  This says to me something is rotten.

Worried now if I go for a bike ride tomorrow with a bottle of water and maybe an illegal Tunnock’s bar, will I get locked up for criminal picnicking  ? 

Derbyshire police have just released the following statement which in a nutshell reads we made a bit of a mistake and were a bit too harsh.

Since the new national lockdown restrictions came into place, the force has been working to implement the legislation that details the reasons why people may leave their homes, including to take exercise and travel.

However, today we have received further guidance from the NPCC which has clarified the policing response concerning travel and exercise which states: 

“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. 

“Police officers will be inquisitive about why people are out of their homes and will explain the regulations and encourage people to comply.  Where people are breaching the regulations and are away from home without a reasonable excuse, they may be issued with a FPN.  In situations where people are breaching the guidance not to travel out their local area but are not breaching regulations, officers will encourage people to follow the guidance.

“We all have a responsibility to follow both the regulations and the guidance in place to protect the NHS and save lives. As throughout the pandemic, we’ll engage proportionately, fairly, and using the well-established 4Es approach. We are confident that the majority of people will act responsibly,  respecting the rules and guidance, and playing their part to keep communities safe. Those who do not follow the regulations in place to limit the spread of the virus should expect to receive a fixed penalty notice.”

Derbyshire Constabulary will now be aligning to adhere to this stance. 

Assistant Chief Constable Kem Mehmet said: “Since the start of the pandemic Derbyshire Constabulary have been working to understand the ever-changing guidance and legislation and to communicate this to our officers in a way that makes it clear what is the right course of action to take. 

“We are grateful for the guidance from the NPCC and our officers will continue to use the 4Es approach and will of course encourage people to follow the guidance and where appropriate deal with breaches of the regulations. 

“The actions of our officers continues to be to protect the public, the NHS and to help save lives.”

All fixed penalty notices during this relevant period that have been issued will be reviewed for compliance. All recipients will be contacted.

Sounds good.  Though I'm fairly sure that guidance was on the College of Policing site the morning after the lockdown came in or thereabouts, so someone missed a massive trick there.

Let's hope there's no more such silliness.

Link:

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

Interesting to read. But it's a sign of poor legislation if the police really need guidance to understand it. How is the public supposed to understand if even the police can't?

Completely agree. It's both poorly written and ineffective

I suspect they will now have a more difficult job policing too as people will be emboldened to challenge what they perceive as an error. If you refuse a FPN or refuse to provide your details then presumably you have to be arrested? One sees another PR disaster awaiting Derbyshire police.

NB reasonably busy with walkers arriving by car today in the White Peak and I hope they are town and city dwellers finding somewhere safe to exercise.

Well it doesn't look icy in that photo but it may have been at the time.

If it wasn't icy then getting your car on its roof on that bit of road (it's just to the north of the "Bamford In the high Peak" sign) requires a special kind of "skill", there are no sharp bends, just some gentle curves. 50mph limit IIRC, I suspect maybe going a weeny bit faster than that.

"travelling between tier four areas" isn't covered by the legislation but I suspect these guys might have a difficult time if they tried to argue that their journey was "reasonably necessary".

Silly billies (before the 9pm watershed language) - it would be even better if by breaching the law, the upside-down car was not insured for damage.

Speaking to a policeman today, he thought it was most likely there was an untold element to the story - something like picnic stuff on the back seat.

Obviously, the news report is written some time after the event by people who weren't there and the story is only one side's account.

The other thing the policeman said was that he would have preferred the police being able to go in much "harder" in the original lockdown (rather than the engage, educate approach) so that people knew where the boundaries were. Likened it to training a puppy to not wee on the carpet - much more difficult to do when you've let the puppy get away with it for ages and then only try to train them when it's an adult.

Just for clarity, that is total and utter bollocks. Promotion is achieved through a formalised exam, board, and portfolio process.

No 

Where have you been?

I'm increasingly concerned about negative public attitudes to the police since things are going to be seriously bad soon in terms of hospitalisations and deaths and we will desperately need good modern policing. Being stuck with ever changing complex regulations, deliberately vague so as not to annoy libertarian tory voices, with, on the one side the home secretary regarding the force as stormtroopers and on the other, too many of the public prepared to automatically assume the worst (as with the officers in peppermintteagate where we still don't have their perspective on the incident).

So driving any distance to your nearest crag is perfectly legal and the police are not able to issue an FPN for this, that's good news.

Alternatively you could recognise we're in the middle of a pandemic and moderate your behaviour accordingly. You might believe you don't post a risk of transmission, but your neighbours might well think that if TomD89 can go wherever he wants and do whatever he wants then so can they.

Maybe it's not all about you?

Maybe the law should be tightened then?  Looks like it will be today.

The law and guidance being different is nonsense, intended to placate backbench MPs but causing all these problems.

All I've been arguing all along is that only the law should be enforced.  Making the law the same as the guidance, and making it clear and simple to obey and enforce, would be better for everyone.

Easiest thing would be to do what the Welsh did - no motor vehicle or public transport use for exercise, exercise starts and finishes at home, except if you have a disability that would render that impossible.  In practice that would mean that only Blue Badge vehicles should be parked at places where this is an issue - really easy to enforce.

It's interesting the phenomenon whereby people skip that all so important first bit and go straight to the last bit. 

I don't disagree. 

Nothing new can be stated, the moralizing has been going on for a year now. My behaviour is and has been moderated in relation to the rules throughout.

You have provided no factual counter to the point made so that speaks for itself really. If it helps you to think of me as a super-spreader for going outdoors, alone, then more power to you.

John Harris’s article in the Guardian today looks at some of these issues-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/10/lockdown-sceptic-covi...

Glad to hear it.

My comment was in response to your final comment. “thats's good news”. If your nearest crag is a hundred plus miles away that isn't good news, as it encourages people to travel large distances, which I took to be your intent. Apologies, as that clearly isn't the case.

The law does need to be clarified though, a fixed distance for exercise and other recreational activities would be a vast improvement, or the Welsh step of banning travel by vehicle or public transport for exercise.

A fixed distance, a fixed time (though I'd go for 2 hours rather than 1 hour* myself) or banning the use of powered transport would all work.  You could even do all three then it's really, really easy to get someone who's taking the mick.

All three are clear, easy to understand if you're complying and easy to enforce - ideal FPN territory.

* The one hour myth continues...another minister thought it was the case on LBC this morning!

As someone who lives slightly further from the beach than I'd want to push my 3 year old back from (single speed kids bike and just over 2.5 miles up a moderate hill on the return leg) that would feel disproportionately painful! 

mention of  LBC,

this is my niece the other day on LBC,

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1348198886381412352?s=20

You were right the first time. I stated that because you didn't address the fact that it's within the law to travel any distance to exercise that you didn't have a substantial argument against it, other than more moralizing/guilting which has been done tens of times already here and isn't a fact based argument.

This assumes that that would actually be a worthwhile thing from a public health point-of-view, of course? It seems quite possible that the decrease in people bothering to take any exercise at all if they can do is stomp around their grotty suburb, or the increased infections from people crowding in to urban parks and pavements would outweigh the impact from very slightly fewer road accidents, or that the actual difference either way is sufficiently negligible that it doesn't justify the impact on people's quality-of-life.

I can't help feeling like people tend to overemphasise the importance of this stuff if it's basically the last area left in their life that could reasonable be improved on - like, "I'm already working from home and not socialising and getting my shopping delivered, if we really want to make a difference all that's really left is to stop me going out exercising so much." Whereas I read about the 82% of people who don't self isolate fully when they're told to, or talk to my brother-in-law who still goes in to work in a factory with co-workers who are crap at social distancing and management who are crap at giving a damn and think no, actually, could we maybe focus a bit of attention on that instead?

True.  Perhaps it might help more if Police got the temporary right to enter any home where they suspected that more than one household was meeting?  Apparently lots of that is still going on.

But then for that they'd have to get off their backsides and do some on-foot or cycle beat policing, which is no longer in vogue.  Sitting in the car at a beauty spot car park, perhaps with a mint tea (!), is easier.

I also very much like the idea of making businesses responsible if people are caught inside them without a mask and without a viable explanation for not having one.  We do that for alcohol to an almost-ludicrously strict extent, why not masks?  Why can't alternatives be provided, e.g. if you have no mask pay for your fuel at the night pay and they'll get any shop products for you, say?  Or at a small shop, if you're exempt, should the queue be run down and then that person served alone?

I'm further inclined to say that kids (probably <16) should be required to be supervised by an adult if outside at the moment.  They are mingling everywhere, and they spread this strain.  It wouldn't necessarily require strict enforcement, but if children were found in groups it could kick in then, with the parent/guardian fined £200.

I honestly don't know, and I don't want to go in for too much speculation. I'd just hope that any changes that'll have a significant impact on people's lives are backed up by some sort of evidence that they'll have a correspondingly significant impact on controlling the virus and reducing strain on the health service, and not just be about making the medicine taste worse in the hopes that that'll make it work better.

There was an interesting BMJ blog recently about how people's perceptions of adherence to restrictions are distorted and how that might be counterproductive as far as actually dealing with the pandemic goes:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/07/pandemic-fatigue-how-adherence-to-covi...

So you want to INCREASE the amount of people mixing inside a household, one of the most likely places to spread the virus, by having 1-2 policeman randomly able to enter? Do you not think these police going from house to house to house could pose a potential serious risk to the inhabitants?

Not sure I agree with you about any distance being within the law - at some stage I think the distance would effectively invalidate whatever you were doing being a "reasonable excuse" and it being "reasonably necessary" - certainly in practice I think the Police would turn you back or issue a fine - it would be interesting to know whether the courts would consider that travelling too far would invalidate the "reasonable excuse" and the "reasonably necessary" - or maybe they'd determine that it wouldn't because the legislation is badly written.

However, if any distance is within the law, then it's not only exercise. You could travel from one end of the country to the other to go to a supermarket passing loads on the way.

That seems like an extraordinary thing to be advocating in the same thread as the idea that the police should stick to rigid rules and not exercise any discretion or judgement in how they go about their job.

The definition of what gives them cause for "reasonable suspicion" is every bit as subjective as what is a "reasonable" distance to travel from home to go for a walk.  The police are explicitly not allowed to just randomly decide to put someone under surveillance, so it's not as if they could (or should) just stake out whichever house they fancy watching in the hope of spotting something dodgy, even if they had the resources to do that.

The 'bobby on the beat' was never particularly effective for reducing crime even back in the day.  In case you haven't noticed their budgets, personnel and general resources have been cut to the bone and beyond over the last decade of 'austerity'.  The last thing we want now is to commit fully trained and experienced on-duty coppers, a resource we currently have far too little of, to pottering about on a bicycle on the offchance they spot something dodgy and get a chance to blow their whistle.

Legally it is, above was quoted the Derbyshire Police statement which was clarified by the NPCC, which kicked off the responses:

I'm basing my assertion on that, which specifically mentions exercise only. I have no interest or opinion on supermarket shopping. I'll let someone else worry about people that want to drive 200 miles to a Tesco rather than to their nearest one.

Exactly this.

You might "know" you safe in what YOU are doing, but you might just be encouraging someone daft to do something they shouldn't be,

We really shouldn't need to be discussing what's legal.

Why?  I'm not arguing against stricter restrictions or enforcement thereof, I'm arguing that the Police should enforce the law and have the tools to do so.  It's specifically the writing out of FPNs where it's not clear that the law has definitely been broken that I have an issue with.  That is, the discretion is about letting people off who have broken the law but are remorseful, say (e.g. someone who was pulled over for doing 85 on the motorway at 3am and immediately admits wrongdoing not being ticketed), not about enforcing in excess of the law.

The specific (and pretty much only) thing I have an issue with is things being enforced as law that aren't law.

It's possible to both agree with strict restrictions but think that if the restrictions are lax the Police shouldn't be deciding to tighten them.  This "middle-ground" view seems, like with my Brexit fence-sitting*, seem to draw ire from both polarised sides!

* i.e. that I see some of both sides, with the EU having major faults in places, but that Remain was a sensible pragmatic vote.

I suspect the number of people who have actually done that is very near to zero.  However I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to drive to the nearest Lidl even if you live next door to Waitrose - you may not be able to afford to shop at the latter, particularly if on furlough or unemployed.  OTOH, while I'm a fan of Booths as being the best supermarket of them all (Waitrose is a pale imitation), I think driving to my nearest one (which is about 200 miles away) would be utterly taking the proverbial.

Much as I hate to agree with TomD89, the current provisions for Tier 4 state:

"Restrictions on leaving home

"1.—(1) No person who lives in the Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."

Which is fair enough. However:

"(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)

(a)the circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse include where one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 2 applies".

Which seems to state that if you meet one of the "exceptions" then you have a reasonable excuse.

Exceptions includes:

"(c) to take exercise outside—

(i)alone,

(ii)with (a lot of stuff on linked childcare not really relevant to this thread)

(iii)in a public outdoor place, with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household or their linked childcare household,

and sub-paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph"

So going to sub-paragraph (3) we find that for exercise alone there are no limits in place, and for with children and one other person there is simply clarification on wether cares or kids under 5 count in the numbers.

Effectively the law does not indicate that distance makes any impact on your exercise (be it 200 miles from home) being an exemption.

(Anyone who takes the piss is still a dick IMHO)