Police checking travel

[Skimpot flyer]

Is no non-essential travel still "guidance" or is it the law now? I scrapped a trip last week, should have been coming back today, and wasted about £30 of train tickets in the process, which I presumably can't claim back even though I would probably have been prevented from travelling.

Why are people so afraid of the ultra-low possibility of being questioned by BTP or police when travelling on trains?
I’ve been travelling legitimately five times a week, sometimes six, for work purposes, as I am classed as a key worker. I’ve been doing this throughout the entirety of the past 10 months. Dependent on which route I take, this involves two trains and sometimes (during disruption or engineering works) the tube or even a bus.
How many times have I been stopped, approached or questioned?
None.
The closest I came was at a major tube / NR station, at the tail-end of the first lockdown. A couple of teenagers near me had just been asked the purpose of their journey, at the point where they were about to take the escalator down to the Victoria Line platforms. A second officer started to make his way over to me as approached a parallel set of ticket gates, as I was exiting. I opened my jacket to reveal my Royal Mail uniform and the guy raised a hand of acknowledgment and turned back to his colleague, who was still dealing with the teenagers. (This was after 10pm, so I get why they would be wondering why kids were seemingly starting a journey so late at night).
I almost want to get questioned at some point. I am interested to see what level of proof, if any, I get asked to provide, or whether they just take my word for it that I am travelling to/from work. I might even ask whether I am legally obliged to offer some proof of my employment, and in what form. I’m not worried, because I’m not breaking the law or even the guidance on any of these journeys.

In the original OP’s case, I think you’d need to worry more about the fact that you would have been staying overnight somewhere if your abandoned trip involved outbound travel before lockdown and returning after the lockdown commenced.

 

[trainophile]

Why are people so afraid of the ultra-low possibility of being questioned by BTP or police when travelling on trains?
I’ve been travelling legitimately five times a week, sometimes six, for work purposes, as I am classed as a key worker. I’ve been doing this throughout the entirety of the past 10 months. Dependent on which route I take, this involves two trains and sometimes (during disruption or engineering works) the tube or even a bus.
How many times have I been stopped, approached or questioned?
None.
The closest I came was at a major tube / NR station, at the tail-end of the first lockdown. A couple of teenagers near me had just been asked the purpose of their journey, at the point where they were about to take the escalator down to the Victoria Line platforms. A second officer started to make his way over to me as approached a parallel set of ticket gates, as I was exiting. I opened my jacket to reveal my Royal Mail uniform and the guy raised a hand of acknowledgment and turned back to his colleague, who was still dealing with the teenagers. (This was after 10pm, so I get why they would be wondering why kids were seemingly starting a journey so late at night).
I almost want to get questioned at some point. I am interested to see what level of proof, if any, I get asked to provide, or whether they just take my word for it that I am travelling to/from work. I might even ask whether I am legally obliged to offer some proof of my employment, and in what form. I’m not worried, because I’m not breaking the law or even the guidance on any of these journeys.

In the original OP’s case, I think you’d need to worry more about the fact that you would have been staying overnight somewhere if your abandoned trip involved outbound travel before lockdown and returning after the lockdown commenced.

I am not of an age group to claim travel for work, or education unless the U3A is operational currently, which I doubt. It would indeed have involved staying away from my main home, although by myself in my small flat. If I was challenged I frankly wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so decided it was less stressful to abandon the idea.

 

[island]

Is no non-essential travel still "guidance" or is it the law now? I scrapped a trip last week, should have been coming back today, and wasted about £30 of train tickets in the process, which I presumably can't claim back even though I would probably have been prevented from travelling.

Travel in and of itself is not illegal, but leaving your home without reasonable excuse is. If you have a reasonable excuse to be going somewhere, it does not in principle matter how far it is.

 

[trainophile]

Travel in and of itself is not illegal, but leaving your home without reasonable excuse is. If you have a reasonable excuse to be going somewhere, it does not in principle matter how far it is.

As per my post above #391, I would struggle for a "reasonable excuse", so even though the tickets were bought before the lockdown was announced it seems I just have to suck it up and be out of pocket. Doubt I'm the only one, and some people may have wasted a lot more money.

 

[SuspectUsual]

You could carry a wage slip with you if all else fails.

I couldn’t even do that, not that I’d want to. Working from home I don’t have access to a printer and our payslips are accessed via the intranet

 

[yorkie]

.... frankly if people are exempt because of asthma, I do question why they're in a public place in the height of a respiratory pandemic if they are that vulnerable.....

You cannot discriminate on that basis; also no-one is saying people with exemptions are "vulnerable" they are simply entitled to live their lives as you or I.

, and secondly if I personally was exempt I would wear a sunflower lanyard and exemption note to avoid constantly being harassed for asking to wear one.

That is your choice.

I am required to ask people whether they have one but not to question their reasoning (which I would have no desire to anyway); don't get angry with me for asking. I just think people who refuse to wear them and then get angry for being questioned whether they have one are the ones that form a grey cloud and then get angry when it rains!

You do need to be very careful how you ask them. If you ask them in an appropriate and sensitive way, no-one should get angry at you.

 

[Iskra]

I would refuse as we don't live in a police state. They can arrest me, I would then go to the media who would have a field day.

They can arrest anyone to establish their identity, so I don't think it would create as much fuss as you think...

 

[HLE]

That really is going down the 'papers please' route, and I'm simply not prepared to do it, nor should there be any expectation that anyone should need to - the police need reining in. At least it's encouraging that the media are going after the more blatant misuse of powers and showing them up. Hopefully that will make some senior police think twice about what they allow their staff to do - turning the public against them is something which really won't help them at the moment.

The same sort of actions the lockdown lovers will foam at the mouth over. Gestapo eat your heart out.

I'm not agreeing with those who think the media will seize upon incidents like those FPNs issued to those 2 women in Derbyshire yesterday being cancelled. A few hours on and its popped up almost nowhere. The media are actively trying to scare people into not venturing out the front door.

 

[DB]

That is your choice.

Regrettably, it's now reached the stage where those of us who can't wear masks don't really have a choice any more. Well, the choice is to wear the awful lanyard ot have to put up with being hassled. I resisted for months but have given in now and wear the lanyard in shops and on trains.

It doesn't make any difference to maskivists among the public, who still glare above their mask, but nothing much can be done about that. At least they don't tend to challenge me (being over six foot tall and of err... substantial build probably helps with that!). They seem to have largely disappeared from trains recently in any case - no doubt they regard them as too dangerous.

 

[henairs]

The law is quite clear what is and is not allowed.

The interpretation that is being made is that excersise is allowed, that you are allowed to enjoy should be done in the locality in which you live, you would only travel a distance to be more enjoyable and therefore would be recreation.

Ask the question why would you not excercise in your local green space and travel several miles to another location. If the answer is that you would enjoy it more at the other location then it is by definition recreation and not allowed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2021 ==


So why can you not do it local to where you live?

You must be a miserable little person Bonemaster. Thankfully some people are more cheerful despite folk like you trying to be a clever so and so.

 

[_toommm_]

Sounds thoroughly dystopian - "papers please!"

Hopefully I won't encounter them - don't have any work ID and usual work wear is jeans and a fleece.

I was in a closed shop, so I was in jeans trainers and a hoodie and it was fine. They didn't even take a proper look at my letter on my phone they just saw my swipe card and after exchanging pleasantries they moved on.

 

[henairs]

In my eyes there should be clear guidance, of say 10 miles from your home address to travel for exercise purposes.

Quite agree with you Kite159. Problem is your idea is sensible and our government are not. That's the problem, not us but them

 

[Bishopstone]

In my eyes there should be clear guidance, of say 10 miles from your home address to travel for exercise purposes.

So, a man drives 8 miles to pick-up his children, who live with their mother. How far may father and children travel for exercise, from the mother’s home, and in which direction?

I tend to agree with you that guidance should be given. However, three things happen when you provide rules/guidance:

i) People - including many who want ‘strict rules’ for others - state that their particular circumstances are a hard luck case, justifying exemption. If the rule-setters refuse to flex, then they are cruel and dogmatic.

ii) People use their allowances to the full, and then test the boundaries, with the net result in this case being potentially more traffic, and not less.

iii) There is endless tedious debate about unusual circumstances such as those mentioned in my first paragraph, and criticism that the ‘incompetent Government’ didn’t think of every possible permutation of living arrangements/disabilities etc in framing the guidance.

So, I can see why the Government are steering clear of issuing hard and fast rules, which 60% of people would say were too lax for the pandemic, and 20% would say were unnecessarily harsh and a breach of human rights.

 

[Bikeman78]

The law is quite clear what is and is not allowed.

The interpretation that is being made is that excersise is allowed, that you are allowed to enjoy should be done in the locality in which you live, you would only travel a distance to be more enjoyable and therefore would be recreation.

Ask the question why would you not excercise in your local green space and travel several miles to another location. If the answer is that you would enjoy it more at the other location then it is by definition recreation and not allowed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2021 ==


So why can you not do it local to where you live?

If I walk from my house, there is nowhere pleasant within walking distance of my home. It's a large housing estate with fairly narrow pavements and numerous vehicles parked on them. I won't get far before I find a gap that is too narrow to walk with my four year old by my side. Instead I often drive to a nearby park or lake and maybe take some old bread to feed the swans. It also means by son can have a bit of freedom to run around rather than having to hold my hand constantly.

 

[Cdd89]

Sussex Police superintendent threatening to enforce “guidance”. Hopefully just a slip of the tongue, but it astounds me they should want to throw away their hard earned respect in this way.

It also implies that enforcement will be used as a first resort rather than encourage, educate, etc as per college of policing policy as “not knowing the rules is not an excuse”.

https://twitter.com/sussex_police/status/1347570567084466178?s=21

#WATCH Supt Julia Pope express the importance of following government rules around #COVID19.

We've been in the pandemic for nearly a year and not knowing the rules and regulations is not an excuse and enforcement will be used.

From video: “Everybody understands the guidance. We understand why it’s there, it’s not a game and it’s not about getting around the rules. This is really serious and it’s really important. I have to enforce it, we will.”

 

[DB]

Sussex Police superintendent threatening to enforce “guidance”. Hopefully just a slip of the tongue, but it astounds me they should want to throw away their hard earned respect in this way.

It also implies that enforcement will be used as a first resort rather than encourage, educate, etc as per college of policing policy as “not knowing the rules is not an excuse”.

https://twitter.com/sussex_police/status/1347570567084466178?s=21

Everybody understands the rules because we've been in a pandemic for a year? Has she actually not noticed that the rules have changed multiple times, and the official messaging deliberately mingles what is guidance and what is law?

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

About half way down the newspaper headlines on the BBC site this evening, one of the image captions reads:

The Sunday Telegraph reports that police officers have been told to fine people in breach of Covid rules £200 if they refuse to go home after the first time of asking. The paper says new guidance given to all chief constables marks a "significant hardening" in policing England's third national lockdown. A Home Office insider is quoted as telling the paper: "If there was a gunman who killed 1,000 people yesterday running around the country and the government said 'stay at home', everyone would say, 'OK I'll do that, I won't go for a coffee with some friends and walk around the park.'" Meanwhile, NHS hospitals are treating fewer than half of the cancer patients they normally would, the paper reports, as doctors prioritise those with the virus.

(my bold)

How on earth is a gunman comparable to covid-19?

 

[DB]

About half way down the newspaper headlines on the BBC site this evening, one of the image captions reads:

(my bold)

How on earth is a gunman comparable to covid-19?

Clearly designed to appeal to the hysterical Facebook and Mumsnet brigade.

 

[Bikeman78]

You’d hope not. You’d also hope that even if they did, demanding that they hand it over just so they can try to dissuade posters from challenging the narrative would require a court order.
A simple google search on that person’s name can bring up his address...

I just tried this using my own name. Came up with an address that I vacated 14 years ago

 

[Mag_seven]

Sussex Police superintendent threatening to enforce “guidance”. Hopefully just a slip of the tongue, but it astounds me they should want to throw away their hard earned respect in this way.

It also implies that enforcement will be used as a first resort rather than encourage, educate, etc as per college of policing policy as “not knowing the rules is not an excuse”.

https://twitter.com/sussex_police/status/1347570567084466178?s=21

We've been in the pandemic for nearly a year and not knowing the rules and regulations is not an excuse and enforcement will be used.

"Not knowing the rules and regulations is not an excuse" - This is a statement that applies equally to the police as well as the rest of us.

 

[Jaden_emerald]

I don't think it is in any way unreasonable to ask for proof of exemption, whether that's through one of those lanyards, a doctor's note or any other means. Its clear you are exempt if not wearing a mask, so there's no more embarassment in proving it than there is sitting without a face covering on. Personally, I think that if asked you should prove it purely out of respect for those you are travelling with, or otherwise simply don't travel. Because in doing so you are helping to root out those who are pretending to have a disability for their own gain - which when you think about it is pretty sick!

Your opinion on this doesn't matter, only the law = no proof required. And I facepalm everytime people speak as if though lanyards were to constitute any proof, when in fact it's something anyone can print off of the internet and is NOT endorsed by a physician. Seriously, has this virus killed the Brits' braincells, with all due respect? Embarrassing each time I, a scoundrel of a tourist f*k, have to lecture law enforcement officers on the laws in their own country that they're meant to enforce.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2021 ==

When I flew with easyJet last month one of the emails mentioned their mask policy, if you were exempt you needed to get a letter from the doctors/medical centre to say you were exempt.

Which will probably reduce the number of those deciding they don't want to wear a mask because it will mess up their makeup (and who actually likes wearing masks?)

Indeed, both Ryanair and easyJet require a medical certificate, which I've been told most UK GPs won't even issue. Thankfully I have British Airways, which follows UK regulations and so accepts a verbal exemption declaration. Whereas where I'm from, wearing a face covering is only strongly recommended in enclosed spaces, not required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2021 ==

It is illegal if you do not have what is termed a "reasonable excuse." A reasonable excuse under this law could be visiting a garden centre, checking in with your support bubble or going to the Supermarket.

An acquaintance of mine lives in London but has his support bubble (twin sister) in Belfast. There's nothing prohibiting him from flying from London to Belfast to see her (though it is discouraged), but just as with no proof being required for face mask exemptions, so many people incl. officers have zero clue. He was once threatened with arrest at Gatwick, then he gave them his ID card and they saw he was not British. Assuming he was a mere visitor, they let him go.

 

[ValleyLines142]

You cannot discriminate on that basis; also no-one is saying people with exemptions are "vulnerable" they are simply entitled to live their lives as you or I.



That is your choice.



You do need to be very careful how you ask them. If you ask them in an appropriate and sensitive way, no-one should get angry at you.

I do ask in a sensitive way; I approach them quietly (at a distance of course) and ask them. In the four months or so that face coverings have been mandatory, I've not had a single customer become irate at me (and that's how it should be; it's not an unreasonable request).

 

[Jaden_emerald]

I do ask in a sensitive way; I approach them quietly (at a distance of course) and ask them. In the four months or so that face coverings have been mandatory, I've not had a single customer become irate at me (and that's how it should be; it's not an unreasonable request).

Yeah, for me it's about the tone. If you normally ask me why I'm exempt, I'll let you know it causes me breathing difficulties after 10 minutes or so. OTOH if someone rudely tells me "Nah, I need some proof mate" I'll tell them to take a hike (if they threaten with police, I'd tell them I'll gladly have them there)

 

[Iskra]

I do ask in a sensitive way; I approach them quietly (at a distance of course) and ask them. In the four months or so that face coverings have been mandatory, I've not had a single customer become irate at me (and that's how it should be; it's not an unreasonable request).

It's still not your job to be doing this is it? Nobody is asking you to do this, and you've been asked not to, but you still are.

It's coming across like you just enjoy the confrontation. And stepping out from behind the screens is increasing the risk to you, rather than decreasing it, as well as giving a negative impression of the business, when there's already a sign on the door that says to wear a mask anyway. It all just seems very unnecessary.

 

[GodAtum]

Does one have the right to remain silent or go no comment when being questioned by police outside the home?

 

[Jaden_emerald]

It's still not your job to be doing this is it? Nobody is asking you to do this, and you've been asked not to, but you still are.

It's coming across like you just enjoy the confrontation. And stepping out from behind the screens is increasing the risk to you, rather than decreasing it, as well as giving a negative impression of the business, when there's already a sign on the door that says to wear a mask anyway. It all just seems very unnecessary.

Do we know ValleyLines142 isn't a BTP officer? They are meant to enforce the regulation AFAIK (as in tell those without a mask to wear one, but drop it if they say they're exempt)

 

[Iskra]

Do we know ValleyLines142 isn't a BTP officer? They are meant to enforce the regulation AFAIK (as in tell those without a mask to wear one, but drop it if they say they're exempt)

Yes, we do know he isn’t BTP. He works for the same company as me.

 

[Cdd89]

I do ask in a sensitive way; I approach them quietly (at a distance of course) and ask them. In the four months or so that face coverings have been mandatory, I've not had a single customer become irate at me (and that's how it should be; it's not an unreasonable request).

Out of interest, as a percentage how many people apologise and put a mask on, and how many indicate they’re exempt? If the former category is quite large I can see why you would continue to ask, but if on the other hand if the latter category is the majority by far I’d question it

 

[Darandio]

Do we know ValleyLines142 isn't a BTP officer? They are meant to enforce the regulation AFAIK (as in tell those without a mask to wear one, but drop it if they say they're exempt)

They work in a coffee shop.

 

[trainophile]

Did anyone hear the Radio 5Live Stephen Nolan phone-in last night, which was on 23:00-01:00? Around 00:30 (I think, only rough timing though) a woman rang in saying that her son was a dispatcher at a Manchester station (not specified), and had asked a woman carrying a mask to put it on when she approached him with a query. She refused and gave him a mouthful of abuse, and then when she was subsequently turfed off a train due to the way she was behaving she spat in this guy's face. He had the presence of mind to take a swab for DNA identification, and they are reviewing the CCTV footage. Horrendous incident though, enough to put him off doing his job for life. Needless to say there were apparently no BTP around at the time of the incident (which we weren't told, but presumably during the day) - all too busy cross-examining innocent exercisers no doubt.

I imagine the programme is available on the BBC Sounds app, and I apologise for not being more precise about what time the call to the show was made, but I'm pretty sure it was in the last half hour or so.