[rdfb]

I believe the reason the two women had their fines cancelled is because they had not broken the law.

Also because they had the time and energy to fight it. There are many people who don't have that luxury.

[IMCR]

I believe the reason the two women had their fines cancelled is because they had not broken the law.

To be fair our Judges are pretty good on the whole, the problem is the Courts are no longer as accessible to the average person as they might be, for various reasons, so the temptation is to simply accept FPNs, even though you do not believe you have committed an offence. To make matters worse (from this POV, not necessarily it is such a bad thing) the rules are being portrayed as the law, when they are not.

As is so often the case, those with a modicum of intelligence, good lawyers, and the willingness to persevere are better able to deal with this stuff and so we arent all in it together, but it is a lovely idea that we are.

[skydriller]

The French had a distance limit from home, which seems more sensible,

Yes....French "Confinement" was a maximum of 1km from your house for excercise or to walk a dog and you had to fill in paperwork and sign justification for being outside your house plus carry ID etc... As someone who lives on the edge of the village here, we carried the paperwork but pretty much ignored the 1km bit when out with Gustav (The flying Dacshund ) Beaches were closed and actively policed, as were parks etc.

#1 "confinement" here was extreamly disconcerting. I have recounted here before how we were stopped every single time we drove anywhere and asked for papers - I do not think this kind of "police state" action would go down at all well in the UK... by week 4 there was rioting in certain predictable parts of Paris/Marseilles, though they were not widely reported.

#2 "confinement" was a much more relaxed affair, never once stopped out and about. Beaches remained open as were parks. I suspect lessons were learned.

Regards, SD..

[flybymike]

there was rioting in certain predictable parts of Paris/Marseilles, though they were not widely reported.

Much like protests in many parts of the U.K.

[Crash one]

SD.
It would seem that the French police are at least consistent throughout the country and do the same thing as they are told.
The UK different police forces over the country apply different interpretations of the “law”.
As a result people don’t know whether they are breaking the “law” or bending the “advice”.
Confusion reigns everywhere. They say they are going to crack down hard on law breakers but they can’t decide what the law is.

[kanga]

..Cressida Dick saying Boris Johnson's cycle in east London at the weekend was "not against the law", ..
N.B. Not intended as a political comment or to break forum rules.
N.B.2. Not intended as a comment on what people should or should not be doing.

[with the same Caveats as cited above, of course ..]

Clearly, there are nice public (strictly, Royal) Parks with lots of (I assume) legally cycleable, certainly cycled, paths much closer to Downing Street; eg, just down Clive Steps into Horse Guards.. .. on the other hand, I assume the Protection Officers may have insisted on a less instantly public venue. I'm guessing this will have required not only motor transport for the PM (and, separately, bike!) with escort, but prior reconnaissance; oh, and a tip to (only one ?) friendly newspaper photographer ..

[Cessna571]

I believe the reason the two women had their fines cancelled is because they had not broken the law.

Also because they had the time and energy to fight it. There are many people who don't have that luxury.

The media fought it on their behalf.
I always wonder how the media are contacted?

43000 fines, why/how did the media choose these 2 to fight?

Anyway, I bet their YouTube channels have lots more followers now.

Sadly I don’t think the media would have fought the fines if they’d have been 2 chaps.

Saved them £400 though

The reason they were able to go for a walk on their own at a beauty spot, was because everyone else was following the guidance, rather than being selfish.

Then 2 selfish brats pop up, say “it’s only guidance” and go and enjoy the empty outdoors, because everyone else is following the spirit of the guidance.

[rdfb]

The reason they were able to go for a walk on their own at a beauty spot, was because everyone else was following the guidance, rather than being selfish.

Then 2 selfish brats pop up, say “it’s only guidance” and go and enjoy the empty outdoors, because everyone else is following the spirit of the guidance.

What would be selfish would be going somewhere to exercise, finding a crowd, and not leaving immediately.

I find it very hard to accept that somebody finding some empty space is selfish. It's entirely within the spirit of the rules and the guidance to find somewhere to exercise that is empty.

I reserve my judgemental attitude for people actually in crowds, or in close contact with other random people (outside the "1 other person outdoors for exercise" explicitly permitted within the guidance). Because that's what causes infection. Because infection is what we actually need to reduce. Fun, recreation, entertainment...these don't factor into it at all, except where they result in infection risk.

[Cessna571]

I accidentally drifted the thread to a rant about those two girls, rather than a GA thread, so I deleted my post.

The debate is for elsewhere if at all I suppose.

[flybymike]

The reason they were able to go for a walk on their own at a beauty spot, was because everyone else was following the guidance, rather than being selfish.

Selfish to find a deserted country walk rather than stumble around a crowded urban area?

That sounds responsible to me, not selfish.

Or is it just simply that people should not be allowed to have a nice time, and instead, wallow around in the rest of this national misery?

[skydriller]

Or is it just simply that people should not be allowed to have a nice time, and instead, wallow around in the rest of this national misery?

And right there is the issue, be it a flight, a bike ride, fishing, a walk, or any other individual activitiy, there is an insiduous thing going on that "Lockdown isnt supposed to be fun" which leads to "the fun police". I dont want to live in such a society.

Regards, SD..

[IMCR]

I expect a huge number of these relatively trivial instances where FPN's have been issued will either come before the Courts or will be dropped before they do. The FPN recipient has merely to ensure they reject the offer of a fixed penalty within the notice period. I simply cant imagine there will be any appetite for dealing with rejection notices one after the other, nor is it in the public interest, given the huge backlog in the Courts already - I mean people who want a divorce and financial settlement order are waiting months and months, never mind all the far more serious cases.

I dont say this to support (or not) any particular activity, just to re-enforce the earlier point I and others have made that FPNs should not be issued where there isnt a realistic possibilty of enforcement, and it is a dereliction of both our politicians and the police either not to enact legislation if they wish certain rules to be enforced, or accept they are recommendations, and rely on the vast majority to respect and accept they are sensible recommendations that should be complied with. While I have some symphathy for their persistence to refer to the recommendations as rules, I cant help feeling that they are now understanding the wit of the acverage person, who has probably grasped this is a misrepresentation, and it is probably time there is a shift in policy. I think we are seeing this to some degree already, given that I sense the political message is more to implore compliance, and there is a little more fudgeing of the use of there word "rule". Inevitably the publicity given to Borris's cycling expeditions have only made it all more difficult. Unfortunately as usual our political class are very good at shooting themselves in the foot, and then having to work out how to bandage the damage if they arent too chubby to manage to get to their foot.

[proteus]

Or is it just simply that people should not be allowed to have a nice time, and instead, wallow around in the rest of this national misery?

And right there is the issue, be it a flight, a bike ride, fishing, a walk, or any other individual activitiy, there is an insiduous thing going on that "Lockdown isnt supposed to be fun" which leads to "the fun police". I dont want to live in such a society.

Regards, SD..

Well, we're beginning to have the thought police , so the fun police are in good company.

It's a sad state of affairs when things that clearly don't have a risk and have lots of benefits are banned because they think people may be enjoying themselves. Presumably they'd be far happier with lots of suicide.

Yet they seem to be OK with nurses producing tick tock videos.

There's a problem when the rules / guidance/ etc doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. We've got a problem with an infectious disease . Social distancing, hygiene and avoiding groups and cities seem to be very sensible indeed. Why this should stop someone flying by themselves in their own aircraft, which puts you in a bubble with no one around for significant distances is beyond me.

[rdfb]

There's a problem when the rules / guidance/ etc doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. We've got a problem with an infectious disease . Social distancing, hygiene and avoiding groups and cities seem to be very sensible indeed. Why this should stop someone flying by themselves in their own aircraft, which puts you in a bubble with no one around for significant distances is beyond me.

I would accept it if it was on the basis of practical enforcement. The same idea as a curfew, for example - it's much easier to challenge everyone than have to handle a bunch of exceptions.

But this wasn't the case in Tier 3, since so many other things are allowed. And the same goes for the lack of Tier 4 enforcement now (I've been running errands for a vulnerable person - hospital appointments, etc - and I've never been challenged even when it isn't obvious at all what I'm up to because I'm not near a hospital).

So while I'm in support in principle of a blanket "you can't do anything" lockdown on the basis of ease of enforcement, since little effort is being made for enforcement, this isn't currently a valid justification.

(and the first place enforcement needs to take place is in mask wearing and social distancing in supermarkets and that kind of thing)

[Miscellaneous]

I'd like an Aviat Husky on floats, then I can leave the door open on the way and land on the water before fishing from the floats - all perfectly legal, I reckon.

Why go to that expense, JAFO?