Police Enforcement

[Javert]

Whether or not the fines will stick idk, and I have little interest in.



What i will say is that anyone who's defense is 'but i needed to go their to walk' is confusing a need for their want.

Well if the lockdown is only for maybe 3 weeks or a couple of months maximum, I tend to agree.  However, if the lockdown was to last many months, I have a feeling that banning these sorts of extremely low risk actions might be counterproductive as it will a) increase the likelihood of normally law abiding people getting really annoyed and refusing to obey and b) cause potential mental health issues among the people whose main pleasure in life is, for example, going hiking in the hills.



The problem is that reasonably intelligent people can figure out that they are not putting anyone else in danger by hiking alone in the hills, unless they get into trouble either on the journey or while hiking and have to call on the emergency services.  Further, this could also easily happen in a household accident at any time, and as was pointed out on another thread yesterday, the hospital are half empty at the moment so they have capacity to deal with a few RTCs.



I do feel that part of this is that local police are being put under pressure by local busybodies in the mould of Royston Vasey "This is a local place for local people" who wrongly believe that they will catch Coronavirus from someone hiking in the hills near their village.  This is putting pressure on the police to act over zelously when it's a situation where discretion may be better.



You can be sure that the PCSO in that article wasn't there by chance - she was there because she had received irate calls from locals with binoculars who had spotted "outsiders" walking on the hills.



I have seen this in my local village where they have refused to open the local parks, even though the government said they should, thereby preventing those with mobility issues who live near the park from exercising.  These decisions are being lobbied to the police by people who I know, who all live in big houses with big gardens right near to the canals and rivers, so there's an "I'm alright Jack" element to it.



I pointed out to them that youths who are going to congregate against the rules will do so somewhere else if they can't do it in the park so for those youths, it's easier for the police to catch them in the park.  I was outvoted, and the very next day, I saw a group of youths on the canal path sharing a joint!



My feeling is that if the measures clearly go against the growing knowledge about the virus that people have assimilated from reading and watching the news, there is a risk that people will lose faith in the rules imposed.  



If on the other hand, the government believes that going hiking in the hills does spread coronavirus, they should come out and say so and change their other advice about social distancing by increasing it to miles rather than meters.



The other thing is that this starts to split opinion - the public has been about 90% in favour of the lockdown by polling, but you can see here that I feel uncomrotable with the above actions whilst previously in the first 3 weeks I fully supported it.  This is where the measures need to be "measured".

[papasmurf]

And costing lives.  There are costs and benefits.

Costing lives how?

[Scott777]

The lockdown is saving lives

And costing lives.  There are costs and benefits.

[papasmurf]

I don't go to pubs.  But anyway, it's you ignoring the damage of lockdown who is ignoring how many may die.

The lockdown is saving lives, those who are breaking the lockdown are risking lives.

[Barry]

I wish the police would sort out the boy racers who think the emptier roads are an excuse to drive around at motorway speeds in town.

[Nick]

I think people are welcoming confusion upon themselves, there is (so far as i can see) no need for these people to drive to where they want to walk.

But there is a need for the police to set up speed traps on motorway bridges is there? They are so psychic that they NEED to be on that bridge knowing they will save lives...NO, they are profiteering, as we all know the copper on the bridge getting drivers 3/4 of a mile away does not make the roads safer, it fills the police coffers and that is essential is it!

[Scott777]

You mean you really don't care how many people die as long as you can go down the pub.

I don't go to pubs.  But anyway, it's you ignoring the damage of lockdown who is ignoring how many may die.

[papasmurf]

That's only part of it.  You need to assess the harm of lockdown, as opposed to social distancing, or specific isolation.  Where's that science?

You mean you really don't care how many people die as long as you can go down the pub.

[Scott777]

It does not take a rocket scientist to realise if you are not in contact with others the likelyhood of you catching it  is next to zero.

There is science behind it, I suspect it is too difficult for you to understand.

That's only part of it.  You need to assess the harm of lockdown, as opposed to social distancing, or specific isolation.  Where's that science?

[papasmurf]

 There is no science behind the lockdown measures.

It does not take a rocket scientist to realise if you are not in contact with others the likelyhood of you catching it  is next to zero.

There is science behind it, I suspect it is too difficult for you to understand.

[Scott777]

Those legal experts should be told to eff off.



I am getting fed up with excuses from lock down breakers. (There has just been surfer trying to make excuses on local TV, he is an idiot.)

Personally, I'm fed up with people in power making excuses to control the population.  There is no science behind the lockdown measures.  No tests have attempted to estimate the number of infected or immune people.  No assessment of the damage from lockdown.

[Nalaar]

My point though is that regardless of whether the people should be doing that or not, according to some legal experts I've seen being interviewed, the fines won't stick if people refuse to pay them, because people would be able to show that they had a reasonable excuse for being out for the purpose of exercise.

Whether or not the fines will stick idk, and I have little interest in.



What i will say is that anyone who's defense is 'but i needed to go their to walk' is confusing a need for their want.

[papasmurf]

My point though is that regardless of whether the people should be doing that or not, according to some legal experts I've seen being interviewed, the fines won't stick if people refuse to pay them, because people would be able to show that they had a reasonable excuse for being out for the purpose of exercise.

Those legal experts should be told to eff off.



I am getting fed up with excuses from lock down breakers. (There has just been surfer trying to make excuses on local TV, he is an idiot.)

[Javert]

My point though is that regardless of whether the people should be doing that or not, according to some legal experts I've seen being interviewed, the fines won't stick if people refuse to pay them, because people would be able to show that they had a reasonable excuse for being out for the purpose of exercise.



The official police guidance issued last week says that a person has a reasonable excuse for driving somewhere to go walking, if the time they spent walking is a lot greater than the time they spent driving.  If that's true, then driving let's say one hour each way, would be ok if you are going on a 5 hour hike.  



Also just to be clear, the rule that you should not exercise for more than one hour per day does not exist in law - that was made up by the government as guidance but is not currently legally enforceable.



Now personally, like you I think that's not enough and that there is no conceivable reason why anyone would need to drive more than maximum 30 minutes to get somewhere perfectly suitable for exercise.



But... under the current legistlation, the police have to show that they don't have a reasonable excuse for what they're doing, and if we are all going to agree that it should be forbidden for people to drive to Snowdon and walk up it (whilst maintaining social distancing at all times), the police will need more legal powers to enforce that because the legislation that was passed 4 weeks ago is insufficient.  Those fines would not stand up in court.



I've also seen the opposite issue happening with irresponsible tabloid journalists - there was photo of Bournemouth boardwalk posted which appeared to show huge crowds all walking along Bournemouth yesterday.  However, a photographic expert analysed the photo and it had been taken using the type of trickery that Peter Jackson would be proud of, and actually showed about 40 people over the space of about half a mile, so they could easily have all been more than 10m away from each other, not even counting that some of them might have been from the same household.  Also there was nothing to say that those people aren't all from Bournemouth - Bournemouth does actually have a lot of people living there.

[Nalaar]

I think people are welcoming confusion upon themselves, there is (so far as i can see) no need for these people to drive to where they want to walk.