• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

New 4-tier system for England

Status
Not open for further replies.

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
There does not yet seem to be a thread on the new tier system coming in on Wednesday (or is it Thursday) for England.

The large swathes of the country in tier 2 and 3 have caused considerable negative feedback and it appears MPs are finally listening. The government may have to concede that some areas should be moved down from 3 to 2 rather than the whole-county approach currently in effect. It is not yet clear whether this will be right away or at the first review, which is now slated for 16 December. Also, the new rules will have a sunset clause for 3 February, requiring a further Commons vote to extend it.


I can only hope the same attitude is displayed when the review of the face covering rule on public transport comes around – it’s due by 15 December.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
Given that it is likely to get quite a bit colder by February 3rd, and the roll out of the vaccination could take another few weeks yet, I sincerely doubt that restrictions will be scrapped at that point.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
I think there can be little doubt that the face covering mandate's renewal will be rubber stamped, if not rushed through as an "emergency" Regulation using the usual mendacious reasoning.

Even though Reg. 23 of the current restrictions specifies automatic expiry after 28 days, and they started on a Thursday, government guidance about what happens afterwards refers to "from [Wednesday] 2 December". Perhaps the government intends to revoke the Regulations a day early?

The claimed justification for putting all of Lancashire and Lincolnshire into tier 3 (to name just two incongruous cases) is that smaller subdivisions would be confusing. Given that claim, isn't it awfully convenient that it's 'just' Slough and 'just' South Gloucestershire in tier 3, rather than all of Berkshire or Gloucestershire respectively?

Yes, they are unitary authorities, and thus officially no longer part of their former counties, however that is an administrative technicality that all but the most obsessive of cartophiles are likely to be unaware of. Being generous you might say that the government has an "optimistic" view of the average person's knowledge of administrative boundaries...
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
I live in London and work in west Kent (well I work from home at the moment of course), and my colleagues have expressed considerable suprise (to put it politely) at the placement of the entire county in tier 3.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
A thought about Slough. Imagine that the whole of Berkshire had been put in Tier 3. There is a big castle in Windsor. A certain monarch rather likes it there, and travels from Buckingham Palace (Tier 2) regularly. If Windsor were to be in Tier 3, travel between the two, whilst not illegal, would be strongly discouraged, and if the head of state tried it, it wouldn't be a good look. If she decided to hole up in Windsor, her extended Christmas break at Sandringham would be at risk.

I may just have a bit of a fertile imagination on this one, but it does make sense.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
'just' South Gloucestershire in tier 3, rather than all of Berkshire or Gloucestershire respectively?
This ignores the fact that South Gloucestershire is probably in Tier 3 because it is part of the Bristol Urban area and has more links to the City of Bristol rather than the County of Gloucestershire.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,641
A thought about Slough. Imagine that the whole of Berkshire had been put in Tier 3. There is a big castle in Windsor. A certain monarch rather likes it there, and travels from Buckingham Palace (Tier 2) regularly. If Windsor were to be in Tier 3, travel between the two, whilst not illegal, would be strongly discouraged, and if the head of state tried it, it wouldn't be a good look. If she decided to hole up in Windsor, her extended Christmas break at Sandringham would be at risk.

I may just have a bit of a fertile imagination on this one, but it does make sense.

The tiers are being set for local authority areas. There isn’t a county council for Berkshire so they aren’t setting it as the county as a whole.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
This ignores the fact that South Gloucestershire is probably in Tier 3 because it is part of the Bristol Urban area and has more links to the City of Bristol rather than the County of Gloucestershire.
You could say exactly the same about all sorts of other places that have been placed into Tier 3 despite having more links to Tier 2 towns and cities.
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,206
As I said on another thread, there's a simple solution to the tiers problem. Divide the country into MPs constituencies and let each MP decide what tier their constituency should be in.
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
As I said on another thread, there's a simple solution to the tiers problem. Divide the country into MPs constituencies and let each MP decide what tier their constituency should be in.
No thanks - the MP who represents where I live at university is an outspoken advocate of a zero-Covid approach and would probably put us in permanent Tier 3 (regardless of what the city's other MP does)!
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,461
Location
Sheffield
Am I correct in saying that the ((proposed) regulations on whcih MPs will vote next week have not be published yet ?

The guidance has been widely touted, but the guidance has never matched the actual law so far.
 

Solent&Wessex

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Messages
2,683
The Statutory Instrument is published here:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 (legislation.gov.uk)

I have not gone through in fine detail but there seem to be changes to a few things such as Support Bubbles and linked households. Importantly you can now change Linked Households / Support Bubbles as long as you leave 14 days between ending one and starting another.

There are also important mentions of students who appear to be permitted to take a vacation at one other household on one occasion at any point until February, and not necessarily just over Christmas.

The regulations expire automatically in February.
 

High Dyke

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2013
Messages
4,267
Location
Yellabelly Country
The tier system still won't save many pubs and clubs from going out of business. Not that Government gives a damn about the hospitality industry, and the income it generates for the economy. Many pubs and clubs aren't able to diversify, even in a tier 2 area.

Is a blanket ban for a county actually expected to help the situation or hinder it? Fair enough some level of measures need to be in place, but surely the tier levels could've been devolved to the local authorities in each county?
 
Last edited:

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
As soon as you create a boundary you create an anomaly at that boundary.

Once you make the assumption that restrictions are necessary at all (that is scope for a different thread) then either you have one rule for the entire island of Britain or you live with a few anomalies.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I have had a look at the regulations for Tier 3, and I can see nothing which legally prevents you from travelling outside that area for non essential purposes.

All the restrictions seem to be about gatherings and closure of certain types of businesses.

If there is provision in the regulations against travelling outside of a Tier 3 area, then could some point me in the direction of the appropriate paragraph.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,819
Location
Yorks
The whole drive towards scapegoating hospitality is wrong on all levels.

On an economic level, it will cause extreme damage. On a covid level it will encourage people to congregate in unsupervised private spaces.

It undermines the credibility of the whole exercise as far as I'm concerned.
 

Solent&Wessex

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Messages
2,683
I have had a look at the regulations for Tier 3, and I can see nothing which legally prevents you from travelling outside that area for non essential purposes.

All the restrictions seem to be about gatherings and closure of certain types of businesses.

If there is provision in the regulations against travelling outside of a Tier 3 area, then could some point me in the direction of the appropriate paragraph.
There is none that I can see at all.

You are correct in so far as the regulations on seek to restrict gatherings and close certain types of businesses.

There is nothing about travel in, or out, of a Tier 3 area, nor any restrictions on overnight stays or anything else.

Although if you a Tier 3 resident you are required to comply with Tier 3 rules if you are in a Tier 2 or 1 area.


Also of note this time is that the list of exemptions from the rules around gatherings appears to have increased, or at least the wording is different to allow for certain variations on a theme.

The whole drive towards scapegoating hospitality is wrong on all levels.

On an economic level, it will cause extreme damage. On a covid level it will encourage people to congregate in unsupervised private spaces.

It undermines the credibility of the whole exercise as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed.

Pretty much everyone I know, young and old, are now meeting people in private residences in contravention of the rules. Nobody is having wild parties or mass gatherings or big family get togethers, but people are visiting each other in a discrete and sensible manner. There is only so long that you can go without any face to face social interaction, especially in those areas such as where I am, that was subjected to local restrictions banning household mixing long before the current lockdown came along. I think here, technically, it has been illegal to meet anyone else indoors since sometime in early September, possibly even August.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
I note that the new Tier regulations, once again, appear to modify primary legislation relating to powers of arrest.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/regulation/10/made
(5) Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984(1) applies in relation to an offence under this regulation as if the reasons in subsection (5) of that section included—
(a)to maintain public health;
(b)to maintain public order.

I've asked this before, but surely this is not allowed unless there is something in primary legislation to explicitly allow it?

I think Lord Sumption picked up on this in one of the talks he gave recently.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,671
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I note that the new Tier regulations, once again, appear to modify primary legislation relating to powers of arrest.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/regulation/10/made


I've asked this before, but surely this is not allowed unless there is something in primary legislation to explicitly allow it?

I think Lord Sumption picked up on this in one of the talks he gave recently.
So by that I assume the Police will be taking covid tests if they plan to arrest someone to maintain public health? Because if not, that is a very slippery slope indeed.

"I am arresting you on suspicion of having a virus that I can in no way prove right now".
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
So by that I assume the Police will be taking covid tests if they plan to arrest someone to maintain public health? Because if not, that is a very slippery slope indeed.

"I am arresting you on suspicion of having a virus that I can in no way prove right now".
I am not trying to justify this but don't the Police usually arrest people without having proof of the crime at the time of the arrest?
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,641
So by that I assume the Police will be taking covid tests if they plan to arrest someone to maintain public health? Because if not, that is a very slippery slope indeed.

"I am arresting you on suspicion of having a virus that I can in no way prove right now".

No, these regulations are to do with people breaking the Tier regulations, not whether they have a virus or not. The particular sections that @MikeWM is concerned with is applying PACE to this. PACE Section 24 allows police to arrest people without a warrant as long as they have grounds to believe it's necessary. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24 has:
(5)The reasons are—

(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

(b)correspondingly as regards the person's address;

(c)to prevent the person in question—

(i)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii)suffering physical injury;

(iii)causing loss of or damage to property;

(iv)committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or

(v)causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d)to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e)to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f)to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.
So this adds the two reasons from the Tier regulations as legitimate grounds for which it may be necessary to arrest someone.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,671
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
No, these regulations are to do with people breaking the Tier regulations, not whether they have a virus or not. The particular sections that @MikeWM is concerned with is applying PACE to this. PACE Section 24 allows police to arrest people without a warrant as long as they have grounds to believe it's necessary. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24 has:

So this adds the two reasons from the Tier regulations as legitimate grounds for which it may be necessary to arrest someone.
That just makes it worse, because "to maintain public health" could easily be used as a cover all.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
That just makes it worse, because "to maintain public health" could easily be used as a cover all.

It still requires an offence to either be, or about to be, committed. Adding those two points to the above list makes the offences in the legislation (contravening a tier regulation, refusing to follow the directions given by an "relevant person", etc) being introduced actually enforceable, as they wouldn't really fall under any of the other allowable reasons for making an arrest. It doesn't allow for someone being arrested to maintain public health, it's allowing for someone to be arrested for committing an offence in order to maintain public health

Simply having the virus isn't an offence as of yet, so you can't be arrested for it yet. However, given the other thread about the police, and their general inability to follow the law as it's set out, it's certainly cause for concern
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
It still requires an offence to either be, or about to be, committed. Adding those two points to the above list makes the offences in the legislation (contravening a tier regulation, refusing to follow the directions given by an "relevant person", etc) being introduced actually enforceable, as they wouldn't really fall under any of the other allowable reasons for making an arrest. It doesn't allow for someone being arrested to maintain public health, it's allowing for someone to be arrested for committing an offence in order to maintain public health

Then they should have made the proper required change to primary legislation to allow that. As they've tried to sneak it through via secondary legislation, I'm not at all convinced it is legal.

Simply having the virus isn't an offence as of yet, so you can't be arrested for it yet. However, given the other thread about the police, and their general inability to follow the law as it's set out, it's certainly cause for concern

You can be detained and removed to a 'place for assessment' and required to stay there for a period of time if you are, or 'may be' (!) infected, however, under the Coronavirus Act itself. See schedule 21. How 'may be' is interpreted is a potentially alarming question, as it appears to be loosely defined enough to cover pretty much anyone.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/schedule/21/enacted
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Then they should have made the proper required change to primary legislation to allow that. As they've tried to sneak it through via secondary legislation, I'm not at all convinced it is legal.

They won't care - even if there's a legal challenge, it won't get heard until after this particular set of restrictions have expired anyway.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
As soon as you create a boundary you create an anomaly at that boundary.

Once you make the assumption that restrictions are necessary at all (that is scope for a different thread) then either you have one rule for the entire island of Britain or you live with a few anomalies.
This.

Much earlier in all this Blackburn with Darwen tried to impose rules at ward level, since the outbreak was localised.

Result was confusion and ridicule.

The boundaries will be an issue however you do it. In places like Deeside and Llanymynech even national boundaries cause problems!
 

Crossover

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Messages
9,247
Location
Yorkshire
The motion has been passed - 291 to 78

Significantly higher rebellion than the lockdown vote and significant abstentions from the vote, too
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The motion has been passed - 291 to 78

Significantly higher rebellion than the lockdown vote and significant abstentions from the vote, too

Well my MP seems to have voted for it. When I get some spare time I think now’s a good time to make clear to him that this household will now not be voting for him in the future unless there’s a change of approach pretty quickly.

If enough people take this line and make this clear to their MPs then perhaps they might start to get the message.

The difficulty remains of course that none of the parties are offering a different strategy on this. With Starmer there would if anything be more lockdown, but perhaps less chaotically implemented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top