Psamathe wrote:mjr wrote:Oldjohnw wrote:Might I venture a little of what we actually know?
You did, but the problem is that everyone picks a different "little of what we actually know". For example:
5. Michael Gove, whose word is not law and we might not like or respect him (I don't) but it is not unreasonable to assume that he is close to government thinking, quite clearly stated: running 30 minutes, walking one hour and cycling somewhere between.
In the very same statement as those times, he also said quite clearly that it depends on one's fitness and that's just what he'd think reasonable for the average (=unfit!) person that week, but almost everyone ignores those bits of what he said!
......
Or
Oldjohnw wrote:On the one hand some say here is no clarity whilst others say the rules are precise.
Might I venture a little of what we actually know?
1. The legislation says we must remain in our homes.
2. There are then some permissions/exceptions/concessions or what you will....
And none of those exceptions (neither law nor guidance) include travelling to go live in a 2nd home (not your residence) so when PM Johnson does that the message becomes that "it's all optional ..." (even though it is "law", when PM breaks is is he above the law or is the law more a sort of do it if it is convenient?)
As mjr has said, the key word in the
Regulations is '
reasonable', and what is reasonable would ultimately be decided by a court, and will likely vary between people and situations depending upon the particular circumstances applying. The criterion of reasonableness is in a lot of UK legislation, and its imprecision usually does not cause problems because there is normally a lot of precedent and guidance about what is and is not reasonable to which people can refer (and use as a defence in a court case), e.g. a lot of Health & Safety legislation.
The situation we now in is completely without precedent, which does make it more difficult to be sure of what is and is not reasonable, but obsessing where the threshold lies for an individual being fined or prosecuted is much less important than the effect of the legislation and the publicity surrounding it and the general guidance issued by the government and its scientists etc. in getting us as many of us as possible to follow it as best as we can. As I understand it, the degree of compliance by 90+% of us is far more important in reducing the general infection rate than the degree of non-compliance by a very small percentage (I think the UK modelling is in fact based on something like 75% compliance).
FWIW I think that when people give examples of what they think is or might be reasonable, very often that is indeed what is likely to be reasonable for
them, i.e. a good criterion for them but not necessarily for others. In other words, if someone thinks a cycle ride of only up to 5 miles is reasonable that is probably because it's the maximum distance they would normally ride.
With regard to exactly what the
law says, the so called exceptions are not a definitive exhaustive list, but rather examples of activities which would be considered reasonable:
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes...
So the reason(s) for the PM's removal to Chequers probably have reasonable justification, e.g. his medical advisor and/or the Cabinet Secretary may have recommended or required it for his health and to keep him out of no. 10 where the PM's staff and others will continue to be working, and where his continued presence in the flat occupied by the PM might be an unnecessary disruption to the running of no. 10, and might encourage him to attempt to return to work/interfere before he was deemed to be sufficiently recovered.
