Looks like that 73% figure includes January and February flights, which presumably were roughly the same as in 2019.
It says the December figures were 83% down on 2019. April-November will likely have had greater reductions.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Do we need a coronavirus thread?
(5710 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
“December figures were 83% down on 2019“
17% of a lot is still a lot.
Tested and quarantined where necessary? (And enforced??)
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
UK Covid news: Boris Johnson under pressure to explain cycle ride seven miles from No 10
“
Posted 4 years ago # -
I think subject to a few caveats this would almost certainly be explicitly legal in Scotland? The security detail is presumably a bit of a special case though that's clearly not what this story is pointing at.
It's staggering that despite it being almost a year since the start of the last big one England still hasn't got clear an understandable guidelines and rules on what is/is not OK in lockdown. Their spokeswoman today refused to be drawn on whether it's OK to walk while holding a coffee!
I wonder how far you need to cycle from No. 10 before you can be sure you are not being exposed to unsafe levels of air pollution.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Boris, IMO is a complete Richard but even I’d cut him some slack here
Posted 4 years ago # -
Fascinating watching several men dissecting the conduct and characters of two women they've never met, including some rather revealing assumptions that have bog all to do with the situation.
The speedy leap to peg any woman speaking to the press as a self-publicising attention seeker - mmmm how surprising and original. And using disposable coffee cups! In a pandemic! When many places refuse to accept reusable ones! These women must be shamed.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt, yeah we jumped straight to that a while ago
Posted 4 years ago # -
Women fined for going for a walk receive police apology
Chief Constable Rachel Swann said the fines "have been withdrawn and we have notified the women directly, apologising for any concern caused".
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
The government in England is also considering a ban on people walking or exercising with anyone from outside their household, which would leave supermarkets as one of the very few places where people could come into contact with others. Morrison and Sainsbury’s both said they would enforce the wearing of masks in their supermarkets and would post security guards at shop entrances to challenge any customers not wearing a mask or shopping in groups. But despite heavy hints from health secretary Matt Hancock, senior police said they would not be able to help enforce the policy because the rules were too vague and they did not have enough officers.
“
Posted 4 years ago # -
Dorset Police in a different scenario claiming bench gate was set up by anti-lockdown activists
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
Met chief calls for local exercise rules to be clarified after row about PM's cycle ride
“
Posted 4 years ago # -
Pandemic fatigue? How adherence to covid-19 regulations has been misrepresented and why it matters
"adherence to stringent behavioural regulations has remained extremely high (over 90%), even though many people are suffering considerably, both financially and psychologically. Equally, despite anecdotal observations about growing violations and polling which shows that people report low levels of adherence in other people, both self-reported data and systematic observations of behaviour in public places suggest that adherence stayed high during the second lockdown. Some 90% of people or more adhere to hygiene measures, to spatial distancing, and to mask wearing most of the time. Moreover, people generally support regulations and, if anything, believe that they should be more stringent and introduced earlier. This pattern has been repeated in the last few days, with 85% of the public endorsing the January ‘lockdown’ and 77% thinking it should have happened sooner.
Even among those groups who have been singled out and blamed for irresponsible behaviours, such as students whose partying was widely reported in October, systematic analyses reveal a very different picture. ONS data reveals very high levels of adherence to social distancing, very low levels of social mixing, and indeed that students were far more likely than the general population to avoid leaving their accommodation altogether.
The discrepancy between what people are doing and what we think people are doing is instructive and points to what is termed the availability effect. That is, we judge the incidence of events based on how easily they come to mind – and violations are both more memorable and more newsworthy than acts of adherence."
_
"The problem, then, is that in psychologising and individualising the issue of adherence, one disregards the structural factors which underlie the spread of infection and the differential rates in different groups. One also avoids acknowledging the failures of government to provide the support necessary to follow the rules (most obviously in the case of self-isolation). Additionally, one overlooks the fact that some of the rules and the messaging around them, may be the problem (such as encouragement to go out to the pub – doing one’s “patriotic best” according to the PM – and to return to work after the first “lockdown”). It is particularly misleading and unfair to ask people to do things and then blame them for doing so."
Posted 4 years ago # -
"whether it's OK to walk while holding a coffee!"
Fallout from Reservoirgate.
"any woman speaking to the press as a self-publicising attention seeker"
Not really.
Running to the press with your hard luck story is one way of appealing a fixed penalty notice I suppose. Looking at the coverage, the friends may have gone to the local rag initially, then the story was picked up by the tabloids. Why it got quite so much coverage across all media outlets is certainly an interesting case study for analysis. It has exposed a fault line in attitudes to lockdown. Accusations of nanny policing coming from the usual sections of the press including the Times, Torygraph and so on.
Whether or not the decision by police officers to issue fixed penalty notices to the two friends was justified has been rather lost in the debate about the scope of the regulations more broadly. We cannot know exactly why an FPN was issued, but "travelling without reasonable excuse" and an "egregious breach" or "refusing to comply" seem the criteria.
FWIW I still reckon one or both of the friends gave backchat to the coppers when advised that they were in breach of the regulations. Obviously they've left that bit out of their carefully edited tale of "feeling intimidated" and "we've done nothing wrong".
(See Otherwise Law Abiding Motorists passim).
Posted 4 years ago # -
I don't actually want the police making decisions about what is and isn't in breach of the law based upon who is or isn't "giving backchat". If you're challenged by police and think they're over-reaching their authority you are perfectly entitled to question what your transgression is. This still applies if I think I might not like you much as a person based upon a few tabloid factoids.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The police elsewhere seem to be taking the line of politely asking you to stop what you are doing before issuing a fine for non-compliance. Questioning what the regulations are seems fine but if you want to argue a point of lockdown law with a police office while they are telling you to stop what they are doing then I doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a fine.
Questioning what your fine is for is one thing. Continuing to do what you have been told not to however is not.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@derbyshire police had the drones naming and shaming dog walkers during Lockdown1 Their reputation would appear to be stringent interpreters of the regulations. They have now backed down.
When I go for a walk I take a flask of tea. Or a Bidon of weakly diluted Ribena. The people with me know I have this and also there is a good chance of a wee Kit Kat. I will also wear sensible footwear. Though I was checked by a farmer on Mull once not happy about my route but to whom I was polite. The farmer checked me for not having boots over my ankles due to the adders and vipers on Mull. I am also always making sure to be polite to Police Officers.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The police should be given guidance on where transmission risk is greatest. Of course, transgressions with highest levels of risks are hardest to crack down on because they are inside and tend to be dispersed. Whereas lots of people going for walks and cycles in popular spots is an easy target, but I'd suspect the risks are much lower (certainly on a per person basis.
Posted 4 years ago # -
acsimpson - If the thing you are doing is legal - which it seems in this case it was - the police don't actually have the authority to tell you not to do it. The police can indeed choose to ask nicely then enforce - but they should be enforcing law, not (unclear, fuzzy edged) guidelines. This is not an unimportant point of principle - the police do not make law. You seem to be saying they should be able to fine you for continuing to do something legal if they think you've been cheeky?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Mull vipers. Ankle biters. Mull farmers. Agri-charmers.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt, I don't know if you've had many dealings with the police but they tend not to like it when folk don't take their instructions seriously.
My accusation in this particular case is not entirely baseless. The pair have stated publicly that they thought it was a joke at first. Clearly it was not. Was the response to taking this issue possibly too lightly (issuing FPNs) proportionate? The court of media opinion thinks not, it would seem.
It's a good game plan for the next time I'm parking my (entirely hypothetical) motor in breach of parking regulations "just for a minute" while I nip to the shops. When the attendant starts writing the ticket I'll tell him he must be joking, then when the ticket is stuck to the windscreen I'll run to the local papers claiming "intimidation" and that I've done "nothing wrong". Or if I get caught speeding in my (again entirely hypothetical) sports car I'll make a huge fuss and refuse to pay the fine. Like this guy:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063Posted 4 years ago # -
"in many ways the narratives of blame serve to project the real frailties of government policy onto the imagined frailties of public psychology."
See also shaming of benefits claimants and other assorted attacks on the poor.
Why bother with proper policies when there is an "other" group that fingers can be pointed at and blame attributed.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt, here's the relevant section of the legislation. Doesn't say anything about driving or travelling over seven miles and then taking exercise with someone not from your own household.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem the police were correct, both in law and according to the supplementary guidance which advises "local" exercise only.
---
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
Restrictions on movement
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 the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;
(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;
(e)to donate blood;
(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(g)to attend a funeral of—
(i)a member of the person’s household,
(ii)a close family member, or
(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;
(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;
(i)to access critical public services, including—
(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);
(ii)social services;
(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);
(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;
(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;
(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;
(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made
Posted 4 years ago # -
@iwrats, the mull farmer was a charming person once we had broken the ice
Posted 4 years ago # -
“When the attendant starts writing the ticket I'll tell him he must be joking, then when the ticket is stuck to the windscreen”
That’s missing ‘the point’.
Parking is regulated by very detailed laws, which some smart lawyers use to point out technical breaches by attendants.
‘Have they broken the law?’/‘should ‘they’ (and plenty others) be fined?’ is FAR from clear.
If it was straightforward the Police wouldn’t have backed down.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I don't know if you've had many dealings with the police but they tend not to like it when folk don't take their instructions seriously.
Baffled as to how this refutes my actual point in any way.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt, British law (I think both Scottish and E&W) historically have a large element of case law. Where there is doubt about the legislation the courts are the ones who decide how to interpret it. You are absolutely right that the police don't have the power to make law, however they do have the power to arrest anyone they think has broken the law, or indeed issue a fine.
That doesn't mean they are correct or that it can't be appealed, but nor does it mean that ignoring a police request will allow you to continue your day untroubled. If indeed the police have been shown to be arresting/fining you on no good grounds then they will be the ones facing consequences.
In this situation however the law is vague enough that the two people walking by the reservoir could be interpreted to have breached the law.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
