This guidance is stricter than law. The law permits exercise including with one other person not from household. That applies to children as much as it does for adults. There is no reason in law why any child (whether they have a garden or not) could not play in a playground. /1
Another crucial point is that children under 5 are not included in the limits for taking exercise with one other person. So there is no reason in law why two parents from different households could not be together exercising with their 4 children under 5 /2
Also included is "where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household" /3 legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374…
Sorry, the under 5s being excluded from the numbers is this bit (though it's v hard to follow)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
First up is the new requirement to book tests on days 2 and 8 after arriving in the UK. The helpful explanatory memorandum is the third image.
Note that these are amendments to another regulation (legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/568/…) so very difficult to follow. As per usual. Inexcusable that these have been published *zero* working days before they come into force and will not be scrutinised by Parliament at all before they do
It’s Valentine’s Day this Sunday. In this thread I show that private meetings and sex between consenting adults who don’t live together has mostly been illegal in England for almost a year... 💔
... if you are in Leicester indoor meetings for dating/sex between people who don’t live together it has been illegal since 26 March 2020. In Manchester, it’s almost the entire time since 26 March.
I think that’s in this respect England has had the strictest regime in Europe and possibly the world. As I understand it, European states tend to allow meetings between two people who do not live together for any reason indoors.
How odd - the woman at Crosby beach was not, in fact, given a Fixed Penalty Notice because the "on reflection" it was not proceeded with. Unclear when that decision was made though. I assume the "conversations on social media" is referring to my conversation with the force...
If tomorrow, no prospect of a parliamentary vote on them until *after* they are brought into force.
This is a law which will lead to the detention of potentially thousands of British adults and children - zero prior scrutiny.
This is a policy which has been on the cards not just for days, or weeks, but for months. Absolutely no justification for using the emergency procedure which requires "by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so laid and approved."
We currently only know the bare bones of the policy. We don't know key details:
- How will the charge work? Will it be means tested?
- What happens to disabled people who can't reasonably be detained?
- What about unaccompanied children?
- Who will guard hotels?
This is just wrong. The police should ignore guidance, which isn't statutory or legally binding, and stick to the law which they are meant to be enforcing, which is complex enough
This is really pernicious. I can see how police have got there - by assuming that the guidance is an insight into what the legislation means. But it isn't. The Covid guidance has consistently gone further than the legislation. A legal limit on exercise distance could have been...
... included in the regulations as it was in Wales, but it wasn't. The guidance confuses, not clarifies, the law. The police would be far safer to ignore it, not least because it is a huge waste of their resources attempting to stope people driving a few miles for exercise...