It’s about reducing risk.
Ironically the people going to the hills are saying they are safer as they are far from other people. Again, they miss the point.
1 Like
The SoS for Health said on TV tonight that it was the RULE to only go out once a day for exercise.
NO, it is not, it is Govt guidance (not arguing that it isn’t good guidance).
The law is specified in the Statutory Instrument - 6(2)(b):
to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
There is no limitation on the number of times you could leave your household for this purpose, nor any distance specified away from your household. However, the Welsh version DOES specify once a day as a maximum - 8(2)(b):
to take exercise, no more than once a day, either alone or with other members of the household;
1 Like
Nah!
We had a building issue a few years ago, and were unable to meet for 8 weeks. We didn’t have Teams, so just all enjoyed the time off. I was actually quite enthused to return. Enjoy the R&R!
2 Likes
Yep me too .However having worked in the service for 16 years up to 2001.Policing in the UK is by consent of the public.That is to say the Police are looked upon as civilians in uniform(bit like CFAVs) .The law is there to be upheld NOT enforced which historically UK Policing has left the paramilitary approach to the likes of the French CRS or Spains Guardia Civil…I for one whilst supporting the Police dont ever want to go down the route of the foreign forces who hit first and ask questions later.Yes I know there is pond life out there(ive met a fair few) but the Police have a very hard task on and I for one am glad they are there.
4 Likes
There’s a point (I seem to say that a lot); criticize the police all you want, but at least it isn’t like the US where asking for directions will, at best, get you met with an admonishing look and, at worst, get a gun pulled on you.
I personally think it’s time for a gear shift, we have done 2 weeks of Engage & Encourage, it’s time for Engage and Enforce.
You still need to be talking to people and using judgement, but Picnic in the park with friends, etc £60 each.
4 Likes
Has anyone considered what will happen from the cost savings been made by RAFAC :
No CFAV claiming VA
Home to Duty claims zero
Minimal Electricity/ Gas being used in buildings
White Fleet unused
AEFs not using fuel in aircraft
Gliding schools not using diesel for winches
The list goes on and as the restrictions continue the savings will accumulate to what should be a not inconsiderable sum.
What will happen to these savings, will they be lost to HM Treasury or retained in the organisation for future use? Maybe we could fund some new equipment of significant super camps when the restrictions end to make up for what appears to be becoming a write off year.
Given the enormous amounts of money HMT are spending to try and keep everything afloat I’d be astonished if we don’t see a return to some sort of austerity after all this is over.
6 Likes
And in more where do they find these people news…
Nothing in the 3 week old legislation about this, not even anything in the makey-uppy guidence about this - and yet…
It does seem ridiculous. If you’re in the store already to buy “Essentials”, what difference does it make if you pick up a bottle of port, or Easter eggs, or a door mat?
I’m a massive fan of the police - I think they do a good job, under crappy circumstances - but I don’t think that tweets like this do them any favours…
As I understand it, yes. Each one of those costs has an allocated budget, and if we don’t spend it, it gets absorbed back into the treasury. There is no way to transfer savings from the white fleet budget, to, for example, to fund a one off MTP clothing issue to staff.
1 Like
That’s why there should be a 1 off overriding budget for the RAFAC with a clause that any unspent goes back to central RAFAC budget. Not Whitehall.
That way we could say kit 50000 people with MTP.
Would at least make this lockdown worth something to your average cadet.
1 Like
At a Wing meeting (via Teams, obviously) they were discussing ways of paying VA in the meantime to those who are doing courses via virtual parades so that there’s some kind of money going through the system and we don’t screw ourselves over.
CPS have issued guidance on exactly this and it has been incorporated into the NPCC guidance. If you are out buying essentials and you tack non-essentials on that’s fine. If you go out purely to buy non-essentials you commit the offence.
CPS have also provided guidance on going to DIY shops, they have said that you can go out to buy essentials to deal with immediate repairs, but not because you have decided to use your working from home to refurbish the kitchen.
I would say that some form of austerity will be coming, but probably not until after the next election.
That’s kind of how I understood the regulations - I would say the tweet could have been worded better to explain that, though.
The law however makes no such distinction - if the shop is allowed to be open, you’re allowed to buy anything they sell.
Given that it takes plod 24 hours to turn up to a burglary, I’m curious as to where the resources to police a difference between buying enough supplies to repair flood damage (for a timely example) and a random refurbishment come from?
It’s almost as if plod and the CPS have no interest in actual crime but like wearing black uniforms, manning checkpoints and checking people’s papers (receipts, in this instance)…
Hardly. Strikes me as a tongue in cheek nod to the “essential travel” guidance.
And I suspect there’s less going on generally which frees up personnel to conduct these checks.
Yes, as long as your journey isn’t only for a pack of gum or because you fancy painting your fence.
The law says that you may only leave your home with a Reasonable Excuse and it goes on to give examples of reasonable excuse including to “buy basic necessities”.
Just because Tesco are selling a Paddling Pool doesn’t mean that leaving your house to purchase one is a Reasonable Excuse which is why CPS have now made the distinction.
Tweet deleted & “officer spoken to.”
But in a follow-up on Twitter the force said the initial post, which has since been deleted, was made by an ‘over exuberant officer’ and that its position was in line with national guidance.
‘For clarification, the force position, in line with national guidance, is that we are not monitoring what people are buying from supermarkets,’ it said.
Northants Chief Constable (CC) put his foot in it, big time, threatening road check points & if necessary, checking your shopping trolley for non-essential items. Oh, “non-essential” is NOT defined.
“Not appropriate" said the Home Sec -around 6:00 in the clip.
Policing by consent also mentioned several times, which is a very important point.
The CC had to make a BIG retraction.
1 Like
Link or example please?
I can’t see how CPS can do this without causing grounds for appeal - for example:
“I was buying a paddling pool for the benefits of my children to minimise effects on their mental health for being shut in all the time.”
“I was buying a paddling pool for the benefits of my dog’s welfare, as it suffers a lot in the hot weather.”
1 Like
I do actually feel really sorry for the police.
Clearly, people are just ignoring the advice, because of many reasons. They are risking other peoples lives to just have a BBQ, or Just nip to Tesco for a paddling pool.
But equally, it must be incredibly difficult for the police to prove it, to the point where they are allowed to act to restrict someones liberties.
It isn’t. But how do you prove they didn’t go to Tesco to buy Pasta, Flour, Loo Roll, disinfectant, and a paddling pool, but were unable to buy the first 4 on the list?
It’s hard enough to prove which one of the 4 scrotes found inside a stolen car is a driver - this must be a nightmare.
1 Like