"in many ways the narratives of blame serve to project the real frailties of government policy onto the imagined frailties of public psychology."
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Do we need a coronavirus thread?
(5710 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
“Doesn't say anything about driving or travelling over seven miles and then taking exercise with someone not from your own household.“
Exactly
Which is a big part of the problem - doesn’t say they aren’t allowed.
Too much scope for interpretation. ‘By both sides’ as Donald would say.
Local?
Some people think that’s the end of the street, plenty others in their ‘normal lives’ (especially car users) would regard 20 miles (random distance) as local.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"If it was straightforward the Police wouldn’t have backed down."
Nothing whatsoever to do with the massive media coverage of this case at all, naturally. The actual regulations seem very clear, I've posted them above.
The "vagueness" that various commentators refer to seems mainly to relate to the guidance, not the regulations. Also to behaviours that the regulations are silent on, e.g. "Can I drive somewhere to go for a walk?". The letter of the law would appear to say NO. Of course, in Scotland the regulations were amended specifically to allow travelling (basically by driving for most) for exercise up to a certain distance.
The only injustice here is that, perhaps in another police jurisdiction, officers might be more lenient in allowing folk to travel short distances for exercise. Whereas, until forced to climb down by the media, Derbyshire police were enforcing the law and interpreting related guidance strictly.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@chdot, "Which is a big part of the problem - doesn’t say they aren’t allowed."
It actually says:
"During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."
And then gives a list of the allowed "reasonable excuses". Note "travelling to exercise" is not included, and presumably is therefore illegal.
Some clever lawyer will be along in a minute to say "Aha! No, that's not how English law works!" but Morningsider explained previously how these regulations differ from the usual "freedom loving" laws of England in saying "Thou Shalt Not" to everything except a few exceptions.
"Some people think" - indeed they do, which is why we're in this bloody mess.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“The "vagueness" that various commentators refer to seem mainly to relate to the guidance, not the regulations.”
There you have it.
The Police understand The Law (or not). Everyone else is told about the guidance (and may or may not follow it, deliberately or mistakenly).
I’m sure most people would rather have the Police patrolling supermarkets than beauty spots, but they don’t seem to be up for that.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"the two people walking by the reservoir could be interpreted to have breached the law."
Seems clear they were breaching the law, as drafted and enacted by parliament. The only question really is a moral (or perhaps pragmatic) one - should the officers have been more lenient in using their considerable discretion to levy a fixed penalty notice or just let the two friends off with a warning? I'm sure they are now wishing they had done the latter...
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt, it wasn't a refutation, it was a comment.
In my followup post the regulations are laid out, and they're very clear, frankly.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"I’m sure most people would rather have the Police patrolling supermarkets than beauty spots, but they don’t seem to be up for that. "
This is it. Ideally there would be as much care taken over where to direct policing as for vaccination, testing and lockdowns. There is limited resource and enforcement needs to be directed where it will be more effective.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Everyone is in favour of the police, until it is them being policed.
I wish I had enjoyed the privilege to view instructions from the police as a joke. However, as someone who grew up in not-Morningside, I have been variously stopped and searched, had my name taken and once four squad cars on blue lights hared round a corner, stopped and several police officers bundled me into the back of one of the cars. On each occasion I was simply walking down the street.
A lot of factors seem to be in play in this story - although class and sex would seem to drive the national media interest. Whether we like it, or not, this interest was driven by the involvement of two photogenic, apparently well-to-do women. Women that readers of the Telegraph, Mail etc. can relate to. People who are rarely "policed", which makes this story "shocking". Simply a bonus that the story supports a right-wing narrative about the iniquities of lockdown and over zealous policing of otherwise law abiding folk.
Posted 4 years ago # -
To be fair mate, you are pretty shifty looking :)
Posted 4 years ago # -
Everyone is in favour of the police, until it is them being policed.
That's part of my point though - if the police are overzealously policing even those they usually let be, how "generously" are they interpreting things for other people? Which is why I hate the idea that the police ought not to be questioned and if you DO question them, well... you brought whatever follows on yourself. (Every individual will know for themselves how safe it might be to do so, of course.)
Plus the raging sexism (focus on women for being photogenic is... still sexism) racism and classism of the media aren't the personal fault of the women who are the focus in this story. And the other side of the "sell" here is that a chunk of the readership will be enjoying some delicious armchair condemnation. The "papers" win both ways.
You can also believe lockdown is entirely necessary AND think police over-reach and attitude is a real problem that exists. You don't have to pick just one because the press tries to make it a binary narrative.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"Last year saw the largest increase in UK deaths in a single year since 1940, according to provisional ONS figures"
So that's more than The Blitz during WW2, then.
But sure, yeah let's test out the "vagueness" of the regulations on "essential travel", why not?
Posted 4 years ago # -
yet again:
adherence to stringent behavioural regulations has remained extremely high (over 90%), even though many people are suffering considerably, both financially and psychologically. [8] 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. [9,10] Some 90% of people or more adhere to hygiene measures, to spatial distancing, and to mask wearing most of the time. [11] Moreover, people generally support regulations and, if anything, believe that they should be more stringent and introduced earlier.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The evidence for spread being mainly driven by people who canny be arsed to follow the rules is weak.
"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 # -
"You can also believe lockdown is entirely necessary AND think police over-reach and attitude is a real problem that exists. "
Sure, but as you might say, that doesn't refute my point. What the two friends did was, at face value, illegal. The police levied a fixed penalty which was only withdrawn because the friends stirred up a bit of controversy in the media.
Posted 4 years ago # -
That list of "reasonable excuses" isn't exhaustive ("includes..."). Just because an activity wasn't explicitly mentioned on it, does not mean that performing that activity was illegal.
Posted 4 years ago # -
But didn't the police claim they had driven too far - so they were certainly enforcing something undefined in law ("local") - and doing some hardcore interpretation of "picnic".
If your argument is the law doesn't allow exercising with a non-household member then millions of other people following the guidance in England are presumably also acting illegally by doing so:
You may exercise on your own, with one other person, or with your household or support bubble. This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"..mainly driven by people who canny be arsed...is weak"
It's more likely being driven by the working classes that can't work from home. We all want our bread and milk in the morning, an evening meal, our stuff delivered from wherever.
Tens of millions of people 'serving' in one way or another, whilst middle class office workers sit in their home offices/kitchens and judge...
Posted 4 years ago # -
If you look at the way the Met on the street have interpreted covid restrictions to further increase racial profiling
there'll be significant pushback this summer, they'll catch a lot of heat for this
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
The UK government’s “stay local” instruction for outdoor exercise in England in its current form is “open to interpretation”, the policing minister has said.
Kit Malthouse suggested it should be common sense to define what staying local meant, but admitted the rules were open to interpretation.
“
Common?
Sense?
Posted 4 years ago # -
@baldcyclist - agree. Poorer people, often living in crowded accommodation, who have no choice but to use public transit, working in can't-do-it-from-home jobs etc. are much more likely to be infected. Then be blamed for the infection spikes that they're having to risk. It's... frustrating.
@bax - and yep again.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“It's more likely being driven by the working classes that can't work from home“
More than likely.
Early deaths included notable numbers of PT workers, taxi drivers and frontline health workers.
Plus ‘can't afford not to work’.
80% of minimum wage - if you are eligible - not a great incentive to get tested.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt, copying and pasting the same text multiple times doesn't actually amplify your point.
Personally I'm under no illusions that the spread of the virus has multiple vectors. A major one must be workplaces and travel to work. Another will be retail premises. Another hospitals and healthcare settings. Another schools and childcare establishments.
Given that some of these transmission vectors encompass essential services without which society would cease to function, law enforcement focuses on the "10%" of scofflaws (or maybe higher - do lawbreakers self-report to well-intentioned surveys truthfully?)
Let's take our friends at the reservoir as a case in point. In their interviews they've emphasised how they have carefully observed all the guidance on social distancing etc. because they take the pandemic seriously (one has a brother who works in an ICU apparently). So if they answered the survey, they'd be one of the 90%. Perhaps if they were observed doing anything else other than driving 7.4 miles to go for a walk, they would also be in the 90%. And yet, they were issued fixed penalty notices for breaching the coronavirus regulations, and when confronted by the police seemed to think the situation was a joke.
So I'm taking the 90% with the same pinch of salt as I would if I heard that 90% of drivers are careful and responsible and follow the rules of the road. Maybe the majority are complying with the regulations - or believe that they are. But 90%? Perhaps the phrase "margin of error" needs to be invoked. Even if that's true, that leaves up to seven million scofflaws out there spreading the virus with nary a care in the world...
Posted 4 years ago # -
@unhurt, specifically I recall one of the pair mentioning in interviews that they were asked for their postcodes, then told they were "not locals". So that would appear to be the "stay local" guidance.
Much of the media coverage emphasised a comment from one of the pair that it was further to drive to Nottingham town centre, which they didn't fancy because it was crowded. Maybe the town centre or the reservoir are the only destinations for exercise round Ashby-de-la-Zouch way, but I suspect not.
Again, the whole thing seems to essentially boil down to "What do you mean I can't drive my car wherever I want?" As usual. In Scotland, the government bowed to this "common sense" view early on with their "five miles from local council boundary" rule.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@steveo - only "look shifty". I'm clearly moving up in the world.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
Nearly 300 miles away in Edinburgh, Lucy Scyner has been having a similar experience during her supermarket shifts.
"Social distancing with customers has gone out the window," she says.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/newsbeat-55623289
Surely employers have a duty to their staff.
Personally I’d turn senior managers into door staff...
Posted 4 years ago # -
only "look shifty". I'm clearly moving up in the world.
Well, I still locked all my valuables away before you got in the car!
Posted 4 years ago # -
All of them? On a different note, have you seen my new watch?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Hahaha
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
