|
Apr 2020
10:22am, 1 Apr 2020
1,987 posts
|
um
But don't all the nations new laws include a catch all? (like the 'and anything else you're asked to do' in a job description. From English rule
eg (or similar) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes a direction given under regulation 8, or fails to comply with a reasonable instruction or a prohibition notice given by a relevant person under regulation 8, commits an offence.
So if you ignore or argue a 'reasonable request' by the police or EHO or other relevant persons, because they think you're taking the piss, or because they've been told to stop all sightseers or dog walkers in cars, you're not breaking the main rule, you're breaking this one?
|
|
Apr 2020
10:34am, 1 Apr 2020
2,097 posts
|
Canute
Weath
I agree very strongly with the point you make.
As Lord Finkelstien emphasized on News Night on Monday kindness is needed on both sides. Most police forces are trying to 'police by consent' rather than bullying. However as was illustrated by the discussion about the interpretation of the regulations on the ‘Running in the era of Covid -19’ thread last week, well-intentioned people have been getting quite tangled up in trying to determine what is a reasonable thing to do. It was abundantly clear that we needed clear guidance from the government to avoid damaging antagonism between runners and other members of the public. It is great that clearer guidance has now been issued.
In my view , if there has been anyone at fault in this situation, it is the government on account of the lack of clarity. Nonetheless I should emphasize that despite my general distrust of BJ and his advisors on account of their behaviour over the past 12 months, I have been surprised at how well the government have handled some aspects of this crisis (especially the package of support for business that is focussed on the well-being of employees and, belatedly, on the self employed.) Nonetheless, we do need to hold the government to account for the things they are doing badly. They are slowly getting their act together.
|
|
Apr 2020
10:35am, 1 Apr 2020
8,795 posts
|
ITG
Um, the instruction still has to be under the competences in s8 (with ref to 6 and 7). There is much wider discretion where there are grounds to believe some is infected.
|
|
Apr 2020
10:40am, 1 Apr 2020
6,927 posts
|
jda
I agree um that you end up treading a fine line if you refuse to comply with a request from a policeman etc. However it is that refusal to comply that is the (possible) offence, not the original action that they objected to. Arguing whether their instruction is reasonable is probably not something that’s worth trying as a solo member of the public even if you do think they are being a silly jobsworth.
|
|
Apr 2020
10:49am, 1 Apr 2020
1,989 posts
|
um
Oh - I agree jda. I've never seen soemone who decides to argue the case come off better.
|
|
Apr 2020
10:51am, 1 Apr 2020
370 posts
|
Weath
@ Canute
I agree that 'kindness is needed on both sides' and in the overwhelming majority of cases and I would expect that to be the line that is taken by my colleagues with enforcement duties. The problem here is that the guidance has been very quickly drawn up (and from my own perspective in Environmental Health, having not thoroughly scrutinised it yet, may also cause confusion with 2 other pieces of existing 'nuisance' legislation I already have to juggle with).
As we repeatedly tell people who complain to us; we are not killjoys. The same message also goes to the source of complaint in that whilst we are unlikely to take action over an occasional late/loud party, you have that loud party each and every weekend for a couple of weeks and you'll see our patience tested. However, keep those same parties quiet, not disturbing anyone, and you can have one every day ... 
The same goes for exercise. Nothing wrong (IMHO) with a couple of 100% isolated runs/cycles depending on circumstances. But driving out to beauty spots or seen leaving your own home multiple times a day and you're going to quickly raise eyebrows.
|
|
Apr 2020
11:09am, 1 Apr 2020
6,928 posts
|
jda
Yes it seems that driving somewhere or going out more than once are pretty much taboo. The specific issue that I think a lot of us are bothered by is the supposition by some that the duration of exercise is limited in some way. As far as I can tell, this is simply the result of over-active imaginations and perhaps a wish to be seen to clamp down on people who are being self-indulgent in some way. When Gove was pressed on whether there was a limit, he didn't say either that that there was one, or that there was intended to be one. That hasn't stopped people asserting that there is, or should be.
|
|
Apr 2020
11:24am, 1 Apr 2020
8,796 posts
|
ITG
Scotland has just dropped proposals to suspend jury trials. IMO, this is because the law would have been immediately challenged as violating the Human Rights Act (and I think it did) and hence would have been void. (Scottish Parliament cannot violate HRA, even though Westminster can). There is no right to jury trial under the European Convention BUT there must be a right to cross-examine witnesses (which can be online, I expect) and there must be a right to appeal. Both of these were at risk. There were (I believe) proposals to allow written or recorded statements to be admitted in evidence WITHOUT the opportunity to cross-examine. And one cannot appeal on facts in Scots law (because the jury decides on the facts) but if you don't have a jury, you have just one person (judge) deciding both points of law (appealable) and facts (not appealable). That's a problem. They will look again in 3 weeks when they've had more time to think it through.
IMO, they should drop as many cases down from the High Court (jury) to Sheriff Courts (no jury - but much more limited sentencing powers). If some people get a lighter sentence than they might otherwise, sobeit. Obs not for serious violent offences. I suspect they are already doing these behind the scenes.
|
|
Apr 2020
11:26am, 1 Apr 2020
31,755 posts
|
♪♫ Synge ♪♫
Neighbour's daughter was stopped by police while driving yesterday. Policeman asked where she was going and she told them she was going to exercise her horse. He said OK thank you very much. She said Aren't you going to check where I'm going or ask me any more? He said No, I've been in this job long enough to know not to argue with horsey women!
|
|
Apr 2020
11:30am, 1 Apr 2020
371 posts
|
Weath
As with anything like this it'll be based at point of enforcement upon a reasonable justification and attitude test - with very likely national discrepancies.
Until something has been challenged in court and becomes case law then we will all be feeling the way. If established (and actually very good) legislation such as statutory nuisance powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 still has wide scope for what is and isn't 'reasonable' and/or a 'nuisance', then this one will run and run (pardon the pun).
|
