Issued COVID FPN by a police officer

[XCP]

to quote Graveworm ' obviously one can't exercise without travelling'.

[MaxFromage]

Graveworm said:

Travelling/driving to exercise is not a defined reasonable excuse. It's the exercise that is. Obviously one can't exercise, without travelling, and in England there is no specific restriction on distance, but being away from home, including the journey does need to constitute a reasonable excuse.

The defined, explicit reasonable excuses to leave or be away from where you live are prefaced by reasonably necessary.

A court could determine if the journey was, implicitly, a reasonable excuse or whether it was none the less a reasonable excuse. If it was unconvinced then it could convict.

'Could' being the operative word, but the tide is turning on 'interpreting' the legislation. It's fairly clear on what's allowed and what isn't. The police (and magistrates) are trying to find something that isn't there. An interesting example:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-righ...

[XCP]

MaxFromage said:

'Could' being the operative word, but the tide is turning on 'interpreting' the legislation. It's fairly clear on what's allowed and what isn't. The police (and magistrates) are trying to find something that isn't there. An interesting example:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-righ...

I'd have asked him for his licence and insurance to drive the car to the MOT. He has then to provide his name and address.

[monthou]

XCP said:

I'd have asked him for his licence and insurance to drive the car to the MOT. He has then to provide his name and address.

Would you wait until he was sitting in the car? Because that sounds very iffy otherwise.

[blueg33]

XCP said:

MaxFromage said:

'Could' being the operative word, but the tide is turning on 'interpreting' the legislation. It's fairly clear on what's allowed and what isn't. The police (and magistrates) are trying to find something that isn't there. An interesting example:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-righ...

If you are stopping someone on the basis of Covid Regs is it then ok to flip to Riad Traffic Act?

I'd have asked him for his licence and insurance to drive the car to the MOT. He has then to provide his name and address.

[johnao]

Graveworm said:

johnao said:

The legislation says one must have a reasonable excuse for leaving one’s home.
Being at an outdoor location for exercise is specified as being a reasonable excuse.
The legislation is silent on distance between home and location of exercise.

Question: if one is issued with a fpn for driving 50 miles to an outdoor location for exercise, as many people have been, and one challenges the fpn in court, is it likely that the magistrates, many of whom don’t understand the law, will convict on the basis that it is not reasonable, and therefore not a reasonable excuse, to travel 50 miles for an albeit permitted activity?

Travelling/driving to exercise is not a defined reasonable excuse. It's the exercise that is. Obviously one can't exercise, without travelling, and in England there is no specific restriction on distance, but being away from home, including the journey does need to constitute a reasonable excuse.

The defined, explicit reasonable excuses to leave or be away from where you live are prefaced by reasonably necessary.

A court could determine if the journey was, implicitly, a reasonable excuse or whether it was none the less a reasonable excuse. If it was unconvinced then it could convict.

Thank you.

[XCP]

monthou said:

XCP said:

I'd have asked him for his licence and insurance to drive the car to the MOT. He has then to provide his name and address.

Would you wait until he was sitting in the car? Because that sounds very iffy otherwise.

I would suspect an MOT and/or insurance offence depending on the circumstances.

[monthou]

XCP said:

I would suspect an MOT and/or insurance offence depending on the circumstances.

Sure you would. Nothing dodgy going on there.

[Greendubber]

As is often the case with these videos it would always be interesting to see what was happening prior to the phone coming out. If they suspected he had committed an offence and he wasn't supplying his details then they had little choice. If he kept up eith the lack of details when in custody that could have lead to custody staff authorising the strip search tha was being mentioned as no proper risk assessment can be carried out on an unidentified person. Its a big if on the suspected offence though....

The response from the force in question doesn't give much away either, if an apology was needed I'd have thought they would just have come straight out with it. Let's hope BWV was running.

The chap doing the tweeting is a bit narrow minded too, suggesting that they could have simply confirmed his ID via the registration plate of his car. Well that's not always possible due to keepers and drivers often not being the same person but when you're as anti as he is its easy to see why he wouldn't want to make that link.

[Nibbles_bits]

Could have all been avoided if they gave him Words of Advice



As for the Tweeter - They've blocked me. Me!. A member of Welsh Parliamentary!!

Yeah probably because you were on the verge of harassment

[Pothole]

monthou said:

Would you wait until he was sitting in the car? Because that sounds very iffy otherwise.

Sure. Why not wait until he's driven off over your colleague, a child and two dogs while we're in the mood?

[Greendubber]

Nibbles_bits said:

Could have all been avoided if they gave him Words of Advice



As for the Tweeter - They've blocked me. Me!. A member of Welsh Parliamentary!!

Yeah probably because you were on the verge of harassment

Very true, I wouldn't have got out of the car for a couple strolling about.

[Electro1980]

MaxFromage said:

Electro1980 said:

That’s not a straw man. It is literally the issue at hand. Officers being criticised for not knowing the law and then people claiming that they should be learning in their own time.

We you can continue to argue with the dictionary.

Call me old fashioned, but if my job involved making life-changing decisions for members of the public, I'd make damn sure I knew the rules inside out. It's hardly rocket science, a few hours on google and you wouldn't be making stupid decisions. All these officers we see can't be thick, they must just be ignorant.

So, yes, you think that a failure by an employer to provide basic training to do a job is a failing on the employee?

“ A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.”

The statement was made, as you have here, that people should be doing training needed to do their jobs in their own time. I asked you if you agreed with that. This is not about advancement or promotion. This is about the day to day requirements to do the job to a sufficient level of competence. Do you or do you not think that this is on the employer to provide adequate training? Or do you believe that employees should spend their own free time, outside of work, doing training and learning in order to be competent in their job (not excel, not be promoted, not ask for a pay rise. Do their job to a sufficient level to be competent at it)?

[Electro1980]

Ian Geary said:

Pothole said:

XCP said:

Why cannot one exercise without travelling? I could exercise in my living room if I were so minded.

Who is saying one can't?

The people driving 20 odd miles to exercise, and them wondering why the boys and girls in blue are giving them bits of paper?

What if your chosen form of exercise is 20 miles away?

[croyde]

XCP said:

to quote Graveworm ' obviously one can't exercise without travelling'.

I think I mentioned earlier in the thread. I'm in London and when the sun is out it's like a festival, I've never seen so many people. No chance to social distance with cyclists, dog walkers, sweaty joggers, all sharing the same path. Massive queues at the coffee stalls and bumper to bumper on the roads.

My exercise, as I'm getting on, is a decent walk of 8 to 12 miles.

So girlfriend and I get into my car, drive 30 miles to leave the car on a deserted road and do a 10 mile loop. Last Sunday we passed, at over a 2m spacing, about 20 people tops in 3 hours or so.

That I call sensible and safe as well as fantastic for the mind and soul after weeks stuck in London.

Sticking to the 'guidence' is not the correct thing to do if you want to avoid getting Covid or giving it to someone else, much like if I had ridden my motorcycle exactly as the 'law' dictated, having ridden for over 40 years, I would certainly not been here.

In the end it's a balance of survival and looking out for others.

[blueg33]

XCP said:

monthou said:

XCP said:

I'd have asked him for his licence and insurance to drive the car to the MOT. He has then to provide his name and address.

Would you wait until he was sitting in the car? Because that sounds very iffy otherwise.

I would suspect an MOT and/or insurance offence depending on the circumstances.

You would make up a reason - ie basically lie to get the information

I hope you are not a police officer

[monthou]

Pothole said:

monthou said:

Would you wait until he was sitting in the car? Because that sounds very iffy otherwise.

Sure. Why not wait until he's driven off over your colleague, a child and two dogs while we're in the mood?

'He was sitting on a bench waiting for the test to be done when he was approached by Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), who asked him to provide reasons for being in public and to provide his name and address so that a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) could be issued.'
Just shoot him - why wait for him to blow up your colleague, a child, Cardiff Castle and two dogs?

Can you demand details from someone on the basis that they're near a car?

[Pegscratch]

Electro1980 said:

So, yes, you think that a failure by an employer to provide basic training to do a job is a failing on the employee?

No, I think a failure of an employer to provide basic training is a failure of the employer. The failure of an employee to care enough about the profession that they have chosen/found themselves in to do not even basic reading of pertinent information and events is a failure of the employee. It is not binary. You can have an employer that has not failed and an employee that still does. You can have an employer that has failed and an employee that has not.

Hence your argument being somewhat of a strawman. You argued that the employer has failed them, not the employee failing themselves. That is possible, but it is not a counter to the employee having failed themselves.

[Pegscratch]

monthou said:

'He was sitting on a bench waiting for the test to be done when he was approached by Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), who asked him to provide reasons for being in public and to provide his name and address so that a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) could be issued.'
Just shoot him - why wait for him to blow up your colleague, a child, Cardiff Castle and two dogs?

Can you demand details from someone on the basis that they're near a car?

You can if they have the keys to said vehicle, you suspect they have the keys to said vehicle or you suspect they had the keys to said vehicle.

However, it's all XCP's hole to dig at the moment, because it appears from the information given that he had made no discussion about taking the car for MOT, just sat not providing any details at all to justify his being out. So XCP would have been making stuff up to suit his intentions...

[monthou]

Pegscratch said:

You can if they have the keys to said vehicle, you suspect they have the keys to said vehicle or you suspect they had the keys to said vehicle.

Can you point me to the relevant legislation?
IANAL, I've skimmed the RTA and all I can see are powers where there's reasonable cause to think an offence has been commited or an accident occurred. Which is where XCP's imagination came in.