Significant minority find lockdown 'extremely difficult', poll suggests

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

According to a report by the Guardian, NHS staff have been told by the police that an NHS ID card is not "sufficient proof" that their journey is essential.

Neighbours of mine have been prevented by the police from travelling to work at a supermarket, a company ID card again not acceptable as proof. Fortunately the employees  know the area well and were able to find an alternative route that avoided the police road block.

A freight train driver whom I know was turned back at a police road block despite having ID, they also had to find another route to evade the police. Apparently the police wanted to know what the freight train would be carrying, information not usually known in advance by the driver. Perhaps they were concerned that Easter eggs might be included.

The police have suffered a number of defeats recently and seem to be looking for new ways to exert power.

[IndustryInsider]

The police have suffered a number of defeats recently and seem to be looking for new ways to exert power.

Perhaps a bit of a sweeping generalisation?  Just like there’s a small minority of people acting against the rules, I’m sure there’s a small number of police officers doing the same.  Neither is to be condoned of course.

I’m surprised the freight train driver didn’t just phone his/her control and say they weren’t able to come in for duty due to being stopped by the police.  I think that’s what most would do.

[Robin Summerhill]

The police have suffered a number of defeats recently and seem to be looking for new ways to exert power.

Perhaps a bit of a sweeping generalisation?  Just like there’s a small minority of people acting against the rules, I’m sure there’s a small number of police officers doing the same.  Neither is to be condoned of course.

I’m surprised the freight train driver didn’t just phone his/her control and say they weren’t able to come in for duty due to being stopped by the police.  I think that’s what most would do.

Quite. I was just about to reply on similar lines.

The problem with some of those examples is that they are essentially 3rd hand ie. "someone I know said." I'd want more solid evidence before I passed comment.

As far as I understnd things, the emergency regulations have not changed the basic premise that people are innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around.

Police officers in the course of their duties have every right to be suspicious - that is their job, after all. However, in all the circumstances cited there will be others to back up their story. All the officer has to do is radio in so that someone can ring the supermarket or the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) to check the story/ "alibi." The job could be done and the person allowed to go on their way within a few minutes.

And I am afraid I just don't believe the story, as it currently stands, about a freight train driver being asked what his train will be carrying. Either the police officer was being unbelievably thick to epic proportions if he/she didn't actually understand how such things work (after all, if he himself was stopped in civvies on his way to work could he tell his colleague who he'd be nicking that day?) , and in any case the decsion isn't down to him/her over what freight gets carried by rail. There are others, far higher up the food chain than a copper on a roadblock, who decide those things.

And as regards being turned back at a road block and finding an alternative route - I can't think of a dafter course of action to take. What if you get stopped again? That would make you look more guilty than anything else in the eyes of the police. Once again, this appears to be a story that doesn't pass the reality test.

[Celestial]

Of course, even key workers have spare time during which they need to abide by the rules like everyone else.  So having an NHS card, supermarket ID or some other proof of ID isn't a guarantee that the holder is on essential duties when stopped. 

And I'd agree that third hand stories are to be taken with a pinch of salt.  There are enough stories of people breaking the rules that I get that the police have a very difficult job at the moment trying to enforce the rules in a way that is effective but not too heavy handed.   

[TaplowGreen]

The police have suffered a number of defeats recently and seem to be looking for new ways to exert power.

Perhaps a bit of a sweeping generalisation?  Just like there’s a small minority of people acting against the rules, I’m sure there’s a small number of police officers doing the same.  Neither is to be condoned of course.

I’m surprised the freight train driver didn’t just phone his/her control and say they weren’t able to come in for duty due to being stopped by the police.  I think that’s what most would do.

Indeed, what a daft comment about the Police suffering "defeats", it's not a football match, we are, after all, all in this together, and the challenge facing front line Police is a daunting one, which I am sure few of us sitting comfortably (if a little bored) at home would trade places with.

Incidentally, there is a rather sickening trade going in fake NHS ID cards, someone was caught with one just in front of me at Sainsburys during the week, unfortunately for the person concerned, the chap just in front of her was a Policeman! I can't imagine it was a pleasant experience for her when she got to the station, I hope she is fully held to public disgust.

[broadgage]

The term "police defeats" has been fairly widely used in reference to statements by HMG that People CAN buy what they want from shops that are allowed to open. This was reasonably considered to be "defeat" for Northamptonshire police who had "warned they would soon be checking shopping trolleys for non essential items"
And another police force said to have been patrolling the "non essential aisles" in supermarkets.

There was a well reported case, with home video, of police telling a family that they could not use their front garden. The subsequent statement by HMG that people COULD use their gardens as normal, was considered by many to be a defeat for the police.

Likewise the recent government statement that outdoor exercise is NOT limited to one hour, was also regarded as a defeat.

A popular target at present for the police is people in parks and similar places, who are sitting down and "not exercising"

[Robin Summerhill]

A popular target at present for the police is people in parks and similar places, who are sitting down and "not exercising"

I'm in two minds about this.

On the one hand there are many people, perhaps especially the elderly, who might need regular rests as they "lap" their local park.

On the other hand, you could argue that as other people have recently used that park bench before you, you never know what invisible things they might have left behind on it.

[grahame]

...  Just like there’s a small minority of people acting against the rules, I’m sure there’s a small number of police officers doing the same.  Neither is to be condoned of course.

Agreed.

There also seems to be a lot of stories around which (if we are kind) have got embellished in the telling.   Some things don't add up ... the report of a "3 miles of caravans into Cornwall" was - when the webcam was looked at - apparently referring to a near-empty road. I suspect it was "three caravans" not "three miles of caravans"

There was a well reported case, with home video, of police telling a family that they could not use their front garden.

The police (or is this a government or BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) message) do seem to have some things wrong too ... I would question even the background to that .. except as part of a BBC news article:

Devon and Cornwall Police said the family from London was discovered near Torquay at about 05:00 BST.

Control room supervisor Mike Newton said they were fined and "escorted out of Devon", adding: "I shall refrain from further comment."

The government advice is to stay at home and away from others.

It repeated messages against holiday travel and to only go outside for food, health reasons or work where essential

Now - I am pretty convinced I'm allowed outside into my garden - and not as this article carried by the BBC reporting the police and the government says.  Sure - I'm luckier than many.  Or perhaps not lucky - rather by choice that Lisa, Billy and I have chosen to live in a house with a garden.    Sadly, by having their name attached to this statement the Devon and Cornwall police appear to be implementing a "stay indoors" rule which is not the law.  Had they not said "go outside" but "leave your home or current abode" I would have been happier. 

Odd officer making a mistake? Yes - it happens.  Statement in an article carried by the BBC - mistake, intentional or stretching the law on purpose?

Now - I need to go and mow the lawn.   It's outside.   It's legal and honest, and I will be keeping myself decent too.

[broadgage]

A neighbour visited me yesterday, briefly, outdoors only and maintaining two meters social distancing.
Reason was to collect groceries that I had ordered from Tesco for them, to collect toilet rolls from my strategic reserve, and some hand sanitiser made from supplies stockpiled in advance.

Does this count as "buying essentials" which is allowed but does this have to be buying have to be from a shop ? Or does it count as a prohibited social visit.
They took care to avoid police patrols in case.

[Robin Summerhill]

A neighbour visited me yesterday, briefly, outdoors only and maintaining two meters social distancing.
Reason was to collect groceries that I had ordered from Tesco for them, to collect toilet rolls from my strategic reserve, and some hand sanitiser made from supplies stockpiled in advance.

Does this count as "buying essentials" which is allowed but does this have to be buying have to be from a shop ? Or does it count as a prohibited social visit.
They took care to avoid police patrols in case.

On another forum I subscribe to, someone would have posted a photograph of a man in a tin foil hat by now...

[broadgage]

Tin foil hats are now in short supply. People may have to make their own.

[JontyMort]

Now - I need to go and mow the lawn.   It's outside.   It's legal and honest, and I will be keeping myself decent too.

Your own garden is 100% OK, Graham. The Statutory Instrument expressly says the place where you are living includes its garden etc.

[JontyMort]

Who would have thought it would be legal to order a takeaway by phone, online or post, but not by ham radio?

Ham radio is OK for pork products, surely? There might be a lot of crackling on the line, of course.

[TonyK]

According to a report by the Guardian, NHS staff have been told by the police that an NHS ID card is not "sufficient proof" that their journey is essential.

Neighbours of mine have been prevented by the police from travelling to work at a supermarket, a company ID card again not acceptable as proof. Fortunately the employees  know the area well and were able to find an alternative route that avoided the police road block.

A freight train driver whom I know was turned back at a police road block despite having ID, they also had to find another route to evade the police. Apparently the police wanted to know what the freight train would be carrying, information not usually known in advance by the driver. Perhaps they were concerned that Easter eggs might be included.

The police have suffered a number of defeats recently and seem to be looking for new ways to exert power.

If an NHS ID card is not proof of being a key worker, where does that leave a police warrant card?

That said, the Guardian is not known for championing excessive zeal in the exercise of authority, and they may have had to do in depth investigations to come up with those examples (looking through twitter, in other words.)

I would assume that once government reopens after the Easter break, someone at the Home Office will be looking into any daft examples and issuing guidelines. Hard cases make for bad law, and I am sure that a lot of the things that are said and done by those in authority over the course of the lockdown will be challenged after the crisis is over, by anyone with more money than sense and/or sufficient over-estimation of their own importance to obliterate in their own minds the fact that this is a national emergency (no, not just Chris Packham).

The regulations have been imposed by statutory instrument (SO), in this case the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. The preamble to the regulations tells us that

The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (3)(c), (4)(d), 45F(2) and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984(1).

so the first argument will be whether he was entitled to that, or acting ultra vires, or beyond his powers. More than a few Statutory Instruments have fallen at this first hurdle. Assuming that it passes that test, there may well be arguments about section 6:

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

In my previous career, one of my favourite answers to anyone asking if what I was doing was allowed was "Headquarters have raised no objection", meaning that it might look risky, but nobody has thought to expressly forbid what I am doing. Because the list in the SO doesn't preclude something, is it lawful, and if it can include something, how does one decide whether a particular activity is lawful?  Exercise is permissible, but what are the limits to that? Does seeking medical assistance mean just GP or hospital, or could it include an acupuncture clinic? Is attending a protest against HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) to stop trees being felled a reasonable excuse if it is likely to save the world as we know it, and if so, is that measured against the belief of the person attending the protest, or the belief of any reasonable person - the "man on the Clapham omnibus" referred to by Master of the Rolls Sir Richard Henn Collins in a 1903 judgment? Legal text books are written on points like these, and I am sure someone will be daft enough to try a few of them on.

[Bmblbzzz]

There's a fairly long (about 20 pages) essay here about how pandemic situations can accelerate but do not create a tendency towards social control that goes back, with mostly good and occasionally bad intentions, at least as far as Plato.
https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-coronation/?_page=10