Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[kebabking]

This may or may not be right (although when four 40-something men all get out of a single BMW X5 to unpack their bikes, it’s not exactly a great sign that they are successfully socially distancing). But it’s not the point. If the law has been set up to prevent something, somebody thought that preventing it was important. People picking and choosing which elements of the lockdown they want to obey is a problem, because once you start down that route, which is to say who should be doing what?

This is what the law says:

Living safely with respiratory infections, including COVID-19

Guidance for living safely with respiratory infections, including coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

To be pendantic, that's guidance, not law. The guidance has changed has changed (slightly) in the last few days, but the law hasn't.

 

[teuchter]

This may or may not be right (although when four 40-something men all get out of a single BMW X5 to unpack their bikes, it’s not exactly a great sign that they are successfully socially distancing). But it’s not the point. If the law has been set up to prevent something, somebody thought that preventing it was important. People picking and choosing which elements of the lockdown they want to obey is a problem, because once you start down that route, which is to say who should be doing what?

This is what the law says:

Living safely with respiratory infections, including COVID-19

Guidance for living safely with respiratory infections, including coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

It's not actually all that clear because it says

You should minimise time spent outside your home, but you can leave your home to exercise. This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.

You can exercise in a public outdoor place:

Public outdoor places include:

• parks, beaches, countryside accessible to the public, forests

and then it says

Travel

You must not leave your home unless you have a reasonable excuse (for example, for work or education purposes). If you need to travel you should stay local – meaning avoiding travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live

and then

The list of reasons you can leave your home and area include, but are not limited to:

outdoor exercise. This should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel a short distance within your area to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)

So, you shouldn't travel outside of your local area to exercise, but you can leave your area if it's for outside exercise, but if you do that you should only travel within your area.

 

[Cloo]

I think we can just about get away with walking on Hampstead Heath from home. Daaahling.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think we can just about get away with walking on Hampstead Heath from home. Daaahling.

I walked up to Kenwood and back the other day, so from hackney to Camden via Islington and haringey

And I see no problem with it, I didn't go into anyone's home or have a picnic or whatnot, just a simple long walk

 

[kabbes]

It's not actually all that clear because it says

and then it says

and then


So, you shouldn't travel outside of your local area to exercise, but you can leave your area if it's for outside exercise, but if you do that you should only travel within your area.

I don’t think that’s in any way ambiguous. You have to stay within your area for exercise. There’s nothing in that guidance that says otherwise.

There are a list of reasons you can leave your home or area. Exercise is a reason that you can leave your home, but it is made clear that this does not include leaving your area.

Also, in response to kebabking — I think guidance has the force of law when it says “you must...” If my memory serves, the word “guidance” is a bit misleading in that regard. It’s an adjunct to the legislation that tells law makers how they should interpret it in practice.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Or you go out with a hammer and bag of nails and start banging them into the tyres of parked cars with bike racks hanging off the back. Don’t think this isn’t tempting.

Driving somewhere to ride a bike is like using a crane to put up a ladder.

 

[teuchter]

I don’t think that’s in any way ambiguous. You have to stay within your area for exercise. There’s nothing in that guidance that says otherwise.

Yes there is. It includes outdoor exercise in the list of "reasons you can leave your home and area".

 

[kabbes]

Yes there is. It includes outdoor exercise in the list of "reasons you can leave your home and area".

Yes, because it is a reason you can leave your home, so belongs in that list. Then they explicitly point out that you can’t, however, use it as a reason to leave your area.

Do you honestly think you could use that phrasing as an argument that it isn’t clear that you have to stay within your area when exercising? Given that it specifically says you have to stay within your area when exercising.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Driving somewhere to ride a bike is like using a crane to put up a ladder.

is that not the standard way?

 

[Mation]

Yes, because it is a reason you can leave your home, so belongs in that list. Then they explicitly point out that you can’t, however, use it as a reason to leave your area.

Do you honestly think you could use that phrasing as an argument that it isn’t clear that you have to stay within your area when exercising? Given that it specifically says you have to stay within your area when exercising.

They conflate the two. It would be clearer to state the reasons you can leave your local area separately to the reasons you can leave your home so long as you remain within your local area.

 

[Cid]

It's a bit poorly worded, but the difficulty with interpretation comes when you start hopping between sections and looking for inconsistencies. It should be better though, undoubtedly.

This one is weird:

Personal training can continue one-on-one unless everyone is within the same household or support bubble.

 

[kabbes]

They conflate the two. It would be clearer to state the reasons you can leave your local area separately to the reasons you can leave your home so long as you remain withing your local area.

Is still crystal clear that you can’t leave your area when exercising. They were so keen to make this clear that even within that very list we are talking about, they spelled it out AGAIN that you have to stay within your area, so that any doubt would be avoided. Trying to play games of sophistry around the fact that the list is headed “home and area” will get short shrift if anybody attempts to use it as a defence.

 

[teuchter]

Yes, because it is a reason you can leave your home, so belongs in that list. Then they explicitly point out that you can’t, however, use it as a reason to leave your area.

Do you honestly think you could use that phrasing as an argument that it isn’t clear that you have to stay within your area when exercising? Given that it specifically says you have to stay within your area when exercising.

It says

This should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel a short distance within your area to do so if necessary

so, do it locally (= local area?) but ok to travel within your "area".

Suggests that "locally" and "area" are different things, and that "local" is a subset of "area".

The only thing the document actually tries to define is "local".

Elsewhere in the document it says you shouldn't travel outside of your "local area".

It's certainly a good way to confuse things. How about sticking to one term, such as "local area", and defining clearly what that means?

 

[Orang Utan]

Yes, because it is a reason you can leave your home, so belongs in that list. Then they explicitly point out that you can’t, however, use it as a reason to leave your area.

Do you honestly think you could use that phrasing as an argument that it isn’t clear that you have to stay within your area when exercising? Given that it specifically says you have to stay within your area when exercising.

How many miles radius is one’s ‘area’ or ‘local’ ?

 

[teuchter]

By the way - the one bit where something is defined, says that you should not leave your village (if you live in a village).

Are people in the countryside, living in villages and complaining about people showing up from elsewehere, sticking strictly within the bounds of their "village" when going for walks?

Generally the definition of a village is a grouping of buildings. So they can leave their house and go any direction where there are other houses reasonably close together, but not further than that. Not into the open countryside, because that would definitely be outside of the village. Even though another bit of the rules says that the open countryside is somewhere you can go to exercise.

 

[kabbes]

How many miles radius is one’s ‘area’ or ‘local’ ?

It’s clear that it means within your town or village. It’s ambiguous, however, what “part of your city” means. It definitely doesn’t involve leaving your city, though.

It says



so, do it locally (= local area?) but ok to travel within your "area".

Suggests that "locally" and "area" are different things, and that "local" is a subset of "area".

The only thing the document actually tries to define is "local".

Elsewhere in the document it says you shouldn't travel outside of your "local area".

It's certainly a good way to confuse things. How about sticking to one term, such as "local area", and defining clearly what that means?

I certainly agree that they should use consistent terms, but (incredibly to me) lawmakers deliberately use a range of language to give themselves wiggle room in interpretation. In this case, however, they have spelled out that exercise has to be within your local area (and this is defined). They then say again it has to be local but that you can travel WITHIN this area if you need to (which is a weird thing to say but in context and given their further wording in the same paragraph, I interpret as meaning you can drive to the local park if you need to).

 

[Cid]

The problem with drafting rules of any kind is that there is a balance between detail and readability. If you fully define everything you end up with... Well you end up with legislation, and you really don't want people to have to wade through that.

If you start setting out the exact rules for every type of village, every type of urban community, you end up with far too much information.

 

[Mation]

Is still crystal clear that you can’t leave your area when exercising. They were so keen to make this clear that even within that very list we are talking about, they spelled it out AGAIN that you have to stay within your area, so that any doubt would be avoided. Trying to play games of sophistry around the fact that the list is headed “home and area” will get short shrift if anybody attempts to use it as a defence.

It's crystal clear to you.

But given that not everyone else thinks it's as clear, what's better? To have a text, the clarity of which you have to explain, or just have something that everyone can understand straight away?

What's your intended outcome? Understanding, or people understanding in the way you think they should be able to?

 

[SpookyFrank]

is that not the standard way?

In the suburbs it probably is.

 

[Orang Utan]

I sometimes work on my council’s switchboard and last week had a call from a man in his 80s who lived 7 miles from the nearest big park. He and his wife usually drive there to get their exercise and he was worried he would be breaking the law and was asking us if he should tell the cops. I couldn’t really advise him as it’s not my job, but I said that I imagine it’s ok, and to check the Government website. Still not sure whether I was right, so I imagine he was just as confused

 

[killer b]

It's a bit poorly worded, but the difficulty with interpretation comes when you start hopping between sections and looking for inconsistencies. It should be better though, undoubtedly.

This one is weird:

it means you can personally train more than one person if all the people you're training, and you, live in the same household.

 

[MrSki]

The trouble with any hastily drawn up legislation is that it needs test cases in the courts before its impact becomes precedent. Often needs rejigging.

 

[Cid]

I certainly agree that they should use consistent terms, but (incredibly to me) lawmakers deliberately use a range of language to give themselves wiggle room in interpretation. In this case, however, they have spelled out that exercise has to be within your local area (and this is defined). They then say again it has to be local but that you can travel WITHIN this area if you need to (which is a weird thing to say but in context and given their further wording in the same paragraph, I interpret as meaning you can drive to the local park if you need to).

I don't think you'd end up with this type of inconsistency in well drafted legislation... there is a degree of latitude in statutory interpretation, but it is generally governed by specific sets of rules. It's not usually advisable to draft legislation with too much ambiguity, because the way the legal system works here relies heavily on wording over principle... But you can show that your intent wasn't to limit something e.g by saying 'including but not limited to'. Conversely if the drafter means to have a flexible rule, but forgets the 'not limited to bit', you might find the interpretation ends up more strict than is intended. I'd never expect to see something as loose as this in well-drafted legislation (which this is not, of course). You would certainly have a subsection defining area, local etc.

But this is not legislation, it's guidance and just about works. Could be better though.

 

[keithy]

I sometimes work on my council’s switchboard and last week had a call from a man in his 80s who lived 7 miles from the nearest big park. He and his wife usually drive there to get their exercise and he was worried he would be breaking the law and was asking us if he should tell the cops. I couldn’t really advise him as it’s not my job, but I said that I imagine it’s ok, and to check the Government website. Still not sure whether I was right, so I imagine he was just as confused

According to the guidance he would be ok if that is his nearest open space. 7 miles from any open space sounds a bit much tho, knowing where you are based?

 

[StoneRoad]

I think that in March 2020 the Welsh rules were a 5 miles radius of your home as their "local" definition.
Which would have been a problem for some people living out on the Lleyn Peninsula, as some farms are more than that distance from the nearest shops ...

 

[Orang Utan]

According to the guidance he would be ok if that is his nearest open space. 7 miles from any open space sounds a bit much tho, knowing where you are based?

They live outside of the city though

 

[teuchter]

The problem with drafting rules of any kind is that there is a balance between detail and readability. If you fully define everything you end up with... Well you end up with legislation, and you really don't want people to have to wade through that.

If you start setting out the exact rules for every type of village, every type of urban community, you end up with far too much information.

It would be quite straightforward to say something like, you can:
- walk any distance from your front door
Or
- cycle up to ten miles from your front door
Or
- drive to your nearest park or open countryside and then stay within 3 miles of your car.
Or if you don't have a car
- use public transport to get to your nearest public transport accessible park or open countryside then stay within 3 miles.
The end.

 

[Cid]

it means you can personally train more than one person if all the people you're training, and you, live in the same household.

Yeah, that is the interpretation on the face of it, but it doesn't actually make much sense. The case of a personal trainer living in a household and training multiple members of it is er... probably not that common. Perhaps limited to professional athletes, and physical rehab centers. Either way the wording is terrible.

 

[Steel Icarus]

I tell you what's too far - the lengths people will go to justify and excuse or even ignore people taking the fucking piss at a time where getting one over on The Man can lead to people dying.

 

[Steel Icarus]

People should be asking "what's the most privation I can stand" rather than "How much can I get away with"