Lockdown regulations |
Lockdown regulations |
Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 15:58
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 are out: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made
Regs 6 & 7 are those relevant to most people, interestingly the fixed penalty is on an escalator, see reg 10(7). First FPN is £60 (discounted to £30 if paid within 14 days), second £120 (no discount), third is £240, the £480, then £960 which is the maximum (presumably you end up in court on the 6th occasion you get caught). -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 26 Mar 2020 - 15:58
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 09:21
Post
#341
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
At first glance this is a meaningless difference, but to me it seems to close the loophole of the person driving 100 miles to collect an ebay purchase having initially left the house to buy a loaf of bread (a reasonable excuse). Not really, as the regulations stood previously, if you left your house for a lawful reason in the first place and bumped into a friend and decided to go round to his, this would be lawful as there is no restriction on gatherings in private places. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 09:27
Post
#342
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
At first glance this is a meaningless difference, but to me it seems to close the loophole of the person driving 100 miles to collect an ebay purchase having initially left the house to buy a loaf of bread (a reasonable excuse). Not really, as the regulations stood previously, if you left your house for a lawful reason in the first place and bumped into a friend and decided to go round to his, this would be lawful as there is no restriction on gatherings in private places. Meaningless may be the wrong word, but it's not changing anything about the intent of the regulation, just fixing some sloppy drafting. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 09:52
Post
#343
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 432 Joined: 14 Apr 2010 Member No.: 36,876 |
At first glance this is a meaningless difference, but to me it seems to close the loophole of the person driving 100 miles to collect an ebay purchase having initially left the house to buy a loaf of bread (a reasonable excuse). Not really, as the regulations stood previously, if you left your house for a lawful reason in the first place and bumped into a friend and decided to go round to his, this would be lawful as there is no restriction on gatherings in private places. Meaningless may be the wrong word, but it's not changing anything about the intent of the regulation, just fixing some sloppy drafting. But under the redraft, technically, it is legal to leave the house to go to work but not legal to be at work as that is not listed as a reasonable excuse. (BTW, this is not my theory but one put forward by a barrister) |
|
|
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:27
Post
#344
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 12 Jun 2008 From: West Sussex Member No.: 20,304 |
. . . But under the redraft, technically, it is legal to leave the house to go to work but not legal to be at work as that is not listed as a reasonable excuse. (BTW, this is not my theory but one put forward by a barrister) It is clear that the "list" is not exhaustive, just as it is clear that "being at work" is a reasonable excuse. |
|
|
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 10:44
Post
#345
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
But under the redraft, technically, it is legal to leave the house to go to work but not legal to be at work as that is not listed as a reasonable excuse. (BTW, this is not my theory but one put forward by a barrister) Then the barrister was an idiot. The list provided is nothing more than examples as guidance, there is no suggesting they are exhaustive or to be taken literally. QUOTE (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need— so it's clear other things can be a reasonable excuse, but as is what is reasonable is subjective parliament has chose to give examples to calibrate the 'reasonableness' of various actions.As for using the word technically, that's a classic misuse, remove the word and it doesn't change the sentence one jot, it adds nothing at all, it would still either be legal or not without that word. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 11:35
Post
#346
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 432 Joined: 14 Apr 2010 Member No.: 36,876 |
I found the source. It was legal commentary not a barrister (it was retweeted by a barrister).
https://davidallengreen.com/2020/04/a-blund...excuse-unclear/ |
|
|
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 11:39
Post
#347
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
So where he writes
QUOTE Consider this post as something fun and instructive: an amusing example of how not to legislate, and of why rushed legislation without scrutiny is a bad thing he should perhaps write QUOTE Consider this post as something fun and instructive: an amusing example of how to demonstrate you can't read Yeah we all miss things reading but if you're going to write a full article on it...... Did the barrister retweet with a comment? This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 11:45 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 27 Apr 2020 - 14:04
Post
#348
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
so it's clear other things can be a reasonable excuse, but as is what is reasonable is subjective parliament has chose to give examples to calibrate the 'reasonableness' of various actions. Remind me of the process that Parliament employs to draft Regulations... QUOTE As for using the word technically, that's a classic misuse, remove the word and it doesn't change the sentence one jot, it adds nothing at all, it would still either be legal or not without that word. Pot, kettle. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 07:40
Post
#349
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,197 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
So now we have face mask wearing and potential police 'fines' (yes, fixed penalties), there is no redraft of these reg's that I can find to make the non wearing of a face covering illegal, and I can't see how it could reasonable be covered under the 'reasonable' excuse either, anyone know better?
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 10:51
Post
#350
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
So now we have face mask wearing and potential police 'fines' (yes, fixed penalties), there is no redraft of these reg's that I can find to make the non wearing of a face covering illegal, and I can't see how it could reasonable be covered under the 'reasonable' excuse either, anyone know better? The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 have been repealed in their entirety (bar some savings provisions) so there is no restriction on being outside your home at all. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 contain various restrictions on businesses, gatherings and so on. The government has announced that the requirement to wear face masks doesn't come into force until 24 July and from prior experience, odds are the legislation will only be published one or two days before. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 05:25
Post
#351
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
We will have to wait for the legislation but the talk has all been about face coverings not specifically face masks so a natty white silk scarf as sported by a WWI flying ace or an old school motorcyclist should be acceptable.
This post has been edited by nigelbb: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 05:25 -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:56 |