2 weeks ago, I got stopped buying 5 bananas. You can only buy 4. But I could buy 4 bags of bananas and have 24 
3 Likes
Surely not… that is farcical!
I thought so too, but the man at the till took my bunch of 5, broke one off and threw it in a basket before telling me I could have 4 bags.
1 Like
…
And that’s why I go to self scan tills.
Well, I / my wife are shopping for 3 separate family “units” - us (3 people), a family member living nearby (400 yds) who is immune-compromised (+ associated dietary issues; high risk ) & ma-in-law (age 79; high risk - lives in an annex in our garden, I know all the ma-in-law jokes! 
).
Consequently, the options of limiting to “2 of an item” only can cause logistical difficulties in such circumstances, although it’s been comparatively rare for us that this has been severely limiting - for example, neither of our “high risk” people needs a large joint of meat. Only once has this been a practical issue; I packed “Shopping Round One” in the car, & went back in the supermarket to get the required item. In reality, that was of course some additional exposure - but I don’t see any easy solution, other than individual ration cards!
That said, our local Morries has relaxed restrictions on some items, such as bread. Almost no stock of cleaning products, especially those that say “anti-bacterial” - pssst people, we are dealing with a VIRUS here!
2 Likes
Rather difficult in supermarkets that don’t have them though.
Whilst helping my mum with her shop last weekend at Asda old guy in front had 4 individual bottles of beer and they refused to allow him more than 3, though said it was fine to buy 3 cases of 18 and take 54. I put his 4th through with our shopping.
I can understand essentials to a degree but some are taking it way too far
3 Likes
Product rationing isn’t an ideal solution, but under the circumstances and with limited time to turn around any better system it was a suitable compromise - although I’d argue they were slow to react (caught off-guard - supermarket stock control systems aren’t capable of detecting and reacting to massive surges in demand).
For basic needs and survival, allowing more people to get some of what they need is a better solution than some getting all (or more) of what they need.
For contact prevention, large shops lasting a longer period of time are better.
Personally, I was left having to make multiple trips over a few days just for myself as I was away during the initial hoarding.
@MikeJenvey your situation is a reasonable exception, but there was no method able to be put in place at short notice accounting for this. - nor for larger families. However, without the stats I wouldn’t say either are strictly a “majority scenario”.
But let’s not get ourselves muddled with legitimate bulk shopping and those who were just being greedy. There’s no need to feel any miscarriage of justice or feel controversial for making two trips round when you had a perfectly good reason to.
Deliveries were obviously stressed and limited, but an option could have been to put in for a delivery and then go out to tide yourself over until it came.
Equally, following hygiene and distancing guidelines helps reduce any risk of multiple trips.
The stores aren’t to blame for this. The morons now throwing away food and sitting on mountains of bog roll are.
I came a cropper with the idiosyncrasies of how the limits were enforced as well, but in the very short turn around time that these schemes were released, the store staff were as confused by it as many shoppers were - they had to make a decision in the moment and stick with it.
Onto something else - I think the reaction to Police actions (generally, allowing for some over-zealous conduct) is unwarranted.
1 Like
Gonna bite at this one - I would say that most Police actions have been fair / reasonable. However, it has been very clear that some forces / officers have been more than over-zealous; they have over-reacted / gone outside the remit of the SI.
It’s clearly not ONE incident / one officer / one force across the country, or else “top of the tree” Police bosses (& others) would not have expressed their concerns AND the NPCC would not have issued “guidance.”
I’m not a dribbling liberal with a long history of protesting for “oooman rites.” However, it is of vital importance to remember that policing by consent is the general concept in the UK.
See the Grauniad today, & separately the Torygraph (Met Police Asst Comm Neil Basu - officers must preserve “the trust and confidence of the public”) for huge concerns about Police for “over-reaching” their powers.
Even the Metropolitan Police Commissioner agrees - backed up by the re-issued NPCC guidance - we have had at least one incident of a main road into our city with a Police road block to check on the drivers. Our local Road Policing team were very proud to advertise on the Twitter feed that they stopped a car on the M1 to check where the driver was going.
Police should NOT go beyond the legislation - which seems to be the case in some areas. For example, the UK legislation states that you may exercise; it does NOT say that it must be only once a day - whereas the Welsh version incorporates a “once a day” restriction. Nor is any limitation applied that prohibits driving to a location for exercise - say taking 2 - 3 dogs to a country area as it is safer / easier / less public contact to exercise them in one go?
Some Police authorities have set up on-line notification areas where the public can report this - they link to the guidance, not the law:
In summary, the Government guidance on Covid19 is good - but the Police was must not use this as law.
1 Like
We have 47 different forces in the UK each has its own democratically elected PCC who represents the local people and who tells it how to operate and what it’s priorities are. (With a few exceptions like the Met who don’t have a PCC).
The reason we have that system is that what is required and expected in rural Norfolk and what is expected and required by the people of Liverpool are very different and the PCC represents those people.
I find it very disturbing that senior officers like Neil Basu are sticking their oar in to the actions of other forces, how would the MET react if PSNI held a press conference to say they were doing things wrong?
It’s Horses for Courses, the Met has far more people out and about and appears to be focusing its efforts on targeting the usual suspects who are still out committing crime. Derbyshire however being far more rural are busy focussing its efforts on Tourists turning up and potentially bringing infection with them or overwhelming local shops/hospitals.
Its also interesting if you look at Social Media that the people who live in the areas where the Police have taken a firmer line aren’t the ones complaining. As an example North Devon’s Roads Unit have been stopping vehicles and turning them back if they are from out of the County, this has had universal praise on Twitter.
1 Like
and also having to stop people going for jollies in remote areas where it would be a pain to rescue them.
There’s been a lot of noise in my area from a vocal few who don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to drive to somewhere to take their dog for a walk…
Jimmy lives in town A, visits park space B halfway between town A and C, and puts his germy hands all over lamposts and styles.
Tony lives in Town C (which doesn’t have any cases, known or unknown), doesn’t know Jimmy, but went for a walk later on that same day in park space B. Tony is now infected without ever seeing Jimmy, goes home to Town C, touches a lamp post and his garden gate. Infects his family.
Julia lives in Town C and is out for allowed jog, takes a rest and leans on the lamp post. Goes home and infects her family.
Martha is the street’s postie, touches Tony’s gate…
Tabitha is Tony’s wife, goes out and does the shopping 2 days later…
That’s why people need to stay local. That’s why “unnecessary travel” is being clamped down on. That’s how “clean” areas get infected.
1 Like
Equally, you can walk in an open area, away from your urban location without touching anything - & why would Jimmy be touching lamp posts??
Would I walk twice a day through a busy city suburb? No. Is it safer (less proximity to people) to drive a distance in order to exercise? Maybe. There are no distances for exercise specified (Ireland = 2 km) nor do we need a “permission letter” (France - needed one a couple of weeks ago). Over-zealous policing of guidance is counter-productive.
1 Like
Jimmy likes touching lamp posts 
1 Like
Well, I guess it would depend on the extent / potential effect of the actions. Even if you ignore comments from “elevated” positions such as Neil Basu (who, BTW, once seriously suggested abusing anti-terror laws to arrest journalists who displeased him, so for him to speak out in this way is indicative to me that he was very concerned), then the fact that the NPCC had to issue guidance is rather telling.
If you look at the list of 9 principles in the Policing by Consent definition, it’s very clear that some of them have had the Nelson blind eye treatment - no doubt seen by a few officers as “for the greater good.”
As I mentioned, just locally, vehicle check point going into a city (& just before a junction to a large supermarket - doh!), stopping a car on the M1 just to check where the occupants are going?? That is stretching the SI past incredulity! Yes, I’m aware that Police have the right to stop a vehicle under S163 of the RTA, but I’d prefer them to be concentrating on vehicles with an immediate issue, such as stolen, no VED, no MOT (notwithstanding the 3 month’s extension from this month ), no insurance, mis-represented VRMs, dangerous driving, use of hand-held 'phone, etc, etc.
Right. Everyone is stressed but you need to remember to follow our AUP.
Issuing guidance is what the NPCC is for and the guidance they have issued hasn’t changed, it’s the same guidance they issued the day the legislation passed.
Setting up a VCP at a place where most people will have lawful reasons for being out of the house is a sensible way of doing it at this point. All forces are still at the engagement phase, talking to people who are out and about and if they shouldn’t be giving them words of guidance for next time. “Is it really necessary for you to have taken your husband and 5 kids shopping with you madam? Surely it’s better to just go alone to Aldi as the more of you who go the more chance one of you will get infected. Have a nice day and think about it in the future”. It educates the individuals and when they tell all their friends on Skype the message spreads even further.
This needs the iron fist in the velvet glove to back it up and when the response is “yeah whatever I’ll do what I like” that’s when enforcement has to come in. I bet you 9/10 of those who have had enforcement action taken have failed the attitude test.
There is also a fundamental failure to understand how Police powers work by the public and the press. They keep going on about people getting arrested under the legislation when it’s just a ticket. They fail to grasp that if the Police can’t issue a ticket (because the person isn’t co-operating) then you will get arrested. Prime example is the 13 year old in Leeds. Headline “Police arrest 13 year old in park under Corona Virus legislation”. Actual facts, 13 year old in gang of youths stopped in park for Anti-Social Behaviour. Refuses details and gets arrested so that his parents can come and get him from the Police Station (can’t take him home as he’s refusing details), turns outs he’s wanted for Robbery. Gets de-arrested for the Corona Legislation and gets lifted for Robbery instead.
3 Likes
Nope, not appropriate. I believe that the Police will (have?) been told to stop this.
1 Like
As independent organisations they can’t be “told” they can be “asked” or they can be given “guidance”. But the operational aspects of enforcing the law are upto the individual Chief Constables, or in this sort of Operation the Silver Commanders.