Our hourly life and activities are now regualted by a mish mash of changing regulations. Can I suggest that we work together to try to make sense of them from time to time. I and others, all intelligent people have almost given up making sense of them. That cannot be right or helpful.
We need, I think, to know
Where the current regulations are
What is law, and what is 'highly recommended' or similar
How they apply to different situations.
I know that many object to the Regulations. They are free to do so, and to have their voices heard, but I beg anyone wanting to discuss anything outside the question of just what the Regulations are to do so elsewhere.
I suspect that the proposed tiering system (in England) will be under a new set of Regulations. Having expected that, I have left off changing the main post above.
They cannot take effect until Wednesday because as yet they have not been published.
If (as it looks) they replace the extended local restrictions measures now in place, the only substantial change (in Calderdale) as that, now that it is getting colder, we can have limited numbers meet up in the garden.
There are 3 sets of new regulations, one for each tier:
- Very High Alert: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1105/contents/made
- High Alert: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1104/contents/made
- Medium Alert: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1103/contents/made
These regulations were made 5.00 pm Monday 12 October 2020 and come into force Wednesday 14 October 2020.
There are now 10 pages of search results on the UK Legislation site when the sole search term is "coronavirus".
The proposed new regulations have been published:
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020
They have yet to be passed by Parliament but can be viewed as a draft on legislation.gov.uk
They are getting much better at drafting these things. There is much more detail.
I assume that after the 4 weeks, the 'no 3' regulations will be reverted to with each are being allocated a risk level. Despite the minnies, there was I think, evidence that they were beginning to work.
I happened upon this on Twitter.
It appears to be a chap intentionally picking an argument with the police over the lockdown legislation... and claims that he cannot wear a mask because he suffers from anxiety.
Is any law broken by making a false representation about having a reasonable excuse?
Lying to an appropriate officer to avoid prosecution would possibly come under perverting the course of justice - common law offence - maximum sentence life.
I think that at that stage of the proceedings there was no threat of prosecution, so I doubt that that would cover it. Good thought though.
Why is there no threat of prosecution? It seems that the two preconditions for an offence are admitted - the obligation to wear a face covering and the failure to do so. He is liable for the offence unless he can show a proper excuse. He lies.
I am not at all clear that it would be prosecuted, but it might be worth it pour encourager les autres.
Fair point. My meaning was that he wasn't being threatened with prosecution.
Is this kind of question all right here, or would it be better to start a new thread?
This poster is apparently circulating on social media. Rather than circulate it further by copying it here, I'll just describe it.
It is titled "Coronavirus fact sheet for kids", is adorned with an NHS logo and is simply anti-masker propaganda: claiming that the virus is an imaginary bogeyman and nothing to be scared of.
What offence might be committed by spread of this document?
The NHS logo is probably a misuse of trade mark and it might be argued that it's purpose is (at least in part) to cause distress, which would bring it within the remit of the Malicious Communication Act 1988, but is there anything more appropriate?
I thought this tale might amuse some here...
A defiant hair salon owner has been fined £3,000 for refusing to close her business in line with coronavirus lockdown rules.
Quinn Blakey hair salon owner Sinead Quinn, from Kirklees, West Yorkshire, refused to stop trading and was initially issued with a fixed penalty notice and a £1,000.
Kirklees Council officials then visited the salon today to issue a £2,000 fixed penalty notice for ignoring the lockdown regulations after closing then reopening.
Earlier this week Ms Quinn placed a sign in the door which cited the Magna Carta in defence of her decision to defy the lockdown.