the most over the top restrictions introduced

[trebor79]

The most ridiculous restriction has been to be Priti Patel declaring that people stopping in the street for a matter constitutes a "gathering" and that they should be dobbed in. She also made reference to masks which sounded like she was advocating them being used outdoors.

I was tempted to ask if I had to declare what I was going in for...

I remember being asked "pissoir ou toilette?" at the Gare du Nord about 20 years ago, and then being ordered to use the ladies. Apparently there was some issue with the plumbing, I assumed that was normal for French public toilets .

 

[Bletchleyite]

I remember being asked "pissoir ou toilette?" at the Gare du Nord about 20 years ago, and then being ordered to use the ladies. Apparently there was some issue with the plumbing, I assumed that was normal for French public toilets .

I assume that's asking you which you think Gare du Nord is most like, because it's certainly resemblent in appearance and smell to one of them

 

[takno]

The most ridiculous restriction has been to be Priti Patel declaring that people stopping in the street for a matter constitutes a "gathering" and that they should be dobbed in. She also made reference to masks which sounded like she was advocating them being used outdoors.

It was a bit unfortunate when a leading lawyer who, unlike her does appear to have read the legislation, said that she was completely wrong. He did however point out that it was a cheek to say that the rule of nine simplifies anything, as it's taken the legislation from 850 words to 2000.

 

[Westcountryman]

It was a bit unfortunate when a leading lawyer who, unlike her does appear to have read the legislation, said that she was completely wrong. He did however point out that it was a cheek to say that the rule of nine simplifies anything, as it's taken the legislation from 850 words to 2000.

Rule of 9? I thought it was rule of 6.

 

[adc82140]

It was a bit unfortunate when a leading lawyer who, unlike her does appear to have read the legislation, said that she was completely wrong. He did however point out that it was a cheek to say that the rule of nine simplifies anything, as it's taken the legislation from 850 words to 2000.

Even at the peak of lockdown in April it wasn't illegal to stop and have a chat, as long as the long forgotten art of social distancing was employed. She really is an ignoramus.

 

[Bikeman78]

Sign on the door of the only cubicle in use in the Men’s loos at Clapham Junction warns ‘only one person per toilet!’
View attachment 83570

Various toilets at Reading are still locked shut. Seems to be those that are attached to waiting rooms. When I eventually found one that worked, there was a sign stating one person at a time. Inside there was one urinal and one cubicle. Having wandered around for several minutes to find a toilet, do they really think that someone will wait outside if there is someone in the cubicle? Who dreams up this stuff? They must know that it will be ignored.

On the subject of waiting rooms, will they be reopened when cooler weather arrives or will people be expected to shiver on the platform?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Various toilets at Reading are still locked shut. Seems to be those that are attached to waiting rooms. When I eventually found one that worked, there was a sign stating one person at a time. Inside there was one urinal and one cubicle. Having wandered around for several minutes to find a toilet, do they really think that someone will wait outside if there is someone in the cubicle? Who dreams up this stuff? They must know that it will be ignored.

On the subject of waiting rooms, will they be reopened when cooler weather arrives or will people be expected to shiver on the platform?

Just to reiterate, the ‘one person at a time’ sign was on the cubicle door - somebody else can use the urinals, presumably, when the person in the cubicle is flying solo...

 

[MikeWM]

It was a bit unfortunate when a leading lawyer who, unlike her does appear to have read the legislation, said that she was completely wrong.

Particularly as she was the minister who signed this particular piece of legislation! (Don't know where Hancock was, as he's usually the one that does that).

 

[AdamWW]

Particularly as she was the minister who signed this particular piece of legislation! (Don't know where Hancock was, as he's usually the one that does that).

It would be nice if they could manage to come up with legislation simple enough for them to understand, let alone everyone else.

Maybe there needs to be some procedure where legislation can be considered by a larger number of people, including those not actually within the government, and have amendments suggested if appropriate?

And perhaps there could even be a second level of scrutinisation, just to make sure?

OK this could be a bit time consuming but I think we have evidence from last year that such a process can be carried out in days if the will is there.

 

[DB]

It would be nice if they could manage to come up with legislation simple enough for them to understand, let alone everyone else.

Maybe there needs to be some procedure where legislation can be considered by a larger number of people, including those not actually within the government, and have amendments suggested if appropriate?

And perhaps there could even be a second level of scrutinisation, just to make sure?

OK this could be a bit time consuming but I think we have evidence from last year that such a process can be carried out in days if the will is there.

Well, quite. I don't think I am cynical in viewing the repeated use of emergency powers as an attempt to dodge scrutiny!

They also don't seem to have realised that by changing the rules (often in petty ways, with no clear justification) every five minutes they are making it more likely that people will just ignore them all...

 

[LAX54]

You can only 'mix with 6' (apart from a lot of exemptions, including the favourite pastime of all...hunting ! ), but there is nothing stopping 2, 3 or more of your 'mix' having mixed with another group 5 mins previously....and so on, makes it all a bit silly really, saw a bit on TV yesterday, where a location has cancelled a load of kids Birthday Parties, there was no restriction on the children, but only 6 adults were allowed in the area

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Well, quite. I don't think I am cynical in viewing the repeated use of emergency powers as an attempt to dodge scrutiny!

They also don't seem to have realised that by changing the rules (often in petty ways, with no clear justification) every five minutes they are making it more likely that people will just ignore them all...

Going slightly off-topic, but could the emergency powers be abused to make an amendment that suspends the fixed-term parliaments act ?

 

[DB]

Going slightly off-topic, but could the emergency powers be abused to make an amendment that suspends the fixed-term parliaments act ?

Can't see any way in which that could be justified as an emergency, even by the current government!

 

[takno]

Going slightly off-topic, but could the emergency powers be abused to make an amendment that suspends the fixed-term parliaments act ?

It's conceivable that you could use it to prevent an election being held. I doubt you could legitimately use it to suspend the *requirement* to hold an election. You'd probably end up in a similar situation to Poland where the presidential was "held", but no ballot papers were issued or polling stations opened and then the result was effectively declared void as nobody had voted. Even then that outcome was achieved with the tacit support of the Polish parliament as the least-worst outcome once the government had completely messed up all constitutional alternatives.

I think if you tried it in the UK, and certainly outside of a short term crisis, it would be impossible to regard it as anything other than coup, and I suspect the police, military and civil service would start thinking very hard about who they actually wished to take orders from.

 

[MikeWM]

Going slightly off-topic, but could the emergency powers be abused to make an amendment that suspends the fixed-term parliaments act ?

Not using the Public Health Act, no. Statutory instruments can only amend primary legislation where they have been explicitly allowed to do so by other primary legislation (that's the 'Henry VIII' powers we used to hear so much about with the Brexit legislation).

If they were using the Civil Contingencies Act, yes, but they're not (and if they were, those measures would be subject to Parliamentary approval).


Edit : that reminds me - some of the statutory instruments *do* appear to try to make (limited but important) changes to primary legislation, eg. this part in the lockdown regulations which gives the police the power to arrest people for breach of the regulations:

(7) Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 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'm still not convinced that making a change like this is remotely legal by regulation in this way.

 

[birchesgreen]

WMR's traffic light alerts are a total farce.

 

[Scrotnig]

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, in Leicestershire, have decided to punish local people for the rise in cases by introducing a 'parks curfew'. Nobody is allowed in any parks between 5pm and 7am.

I am sure there is a good reason for this. It's just that I don't know what it is.

https://twitter.com/Oadby_Wigston/status/1306247809461616643

 

[birchesgreen]

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, in Leicestershire, have decided to punish local people for the rise in case by introducing a 'parks curfew'. Nobody is allowed in any parks between 5pm and 7am.

I am sure there is a good reason for this. It's just that I don't know what it is.

https://twitter.com/Oadby_Wigston/status/1306247809461616643

I agree with one of the tweets there, we are encouraged to be fitter but then restricted. But then again that's how so many of these measures are being bought in, contradicting with other advice and they wonder why people get confused or don't comply.

Go back to work/school... but sorry not on this bus/train
Get more exercise... but not in this park
No you can't see your friend in their garden... but you can see them in Starbucks

It is getting stupider by the day.

 

[AdamWW]

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, in Leicestershire, have decided to punish local people for the rise in cases by introducing a 'parks curfew'. Nobody is allowed in any parks between 5pm and 7am.

I am sure there is a good reason for this. It's just that I don't know what it is.

https://twitter.com/Oadby_Wigston/status/1306247809461616643

But it was a "difficult descision" so that's fine.

This seems very odd, to put it politely. Dog patrols and £100 fines?

The one justification I can think of if that they may be planning on paying people to make sure that everyone is following social distancing rules and they can only afford that between certain hours (I think that happened in London months ago). But I don't see any suggestion of that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps there is an issue with people congregating and drinking in the park in the evening?

This does seem to have become a game of local authority one-upmanship, though. Never trust local authorities to do anything more important than empty the bins.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Oadby and Wigston.
‘Refreshing the Parks other councils cannot reach’

 

[DB]

Perhaps there is an issue with people congregating and drinking in the park in the evening?

This does seem to have become a game of local authority one-upmanship, though. Never trust local authorities to do anything more important than empty the bins.

But it's probably the case that the type of people likely to gather in parks late in the day aren't likely to take any notice - and I expect it's fairly easy to get in even if they lock the gates (most parks are not exactly designed to be secure!).

 

[AdamWW]

But it's probably the case that the type of people likely to gather in parks late in the day aren't likely to take any notice - and I expect it's fairly easy to get in even if they lock the gates (most parks are not exactly designed to be secure!).

That's why they need the dogs...

 

[Huntergreed]

Is it possible to actually take this situation seriously rather than devolved administrations and local authorities trying to play politics and outdo each other on how “safe” they can be? Getting absolutely sick of it, there’s no need for it and frankly at a time like this it’s disappointing to see.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it possible to actually take this situation seriously rather than devolved administrations and local authorities trying to play politics and outdo each other on how “safe” they can be? Getting absolutely sick of it, there’s no need for it and frankly at a time like this it’s disappointing to see.

Devolving it to local authorities was stupid, to be honest, one-upmanship ("we're safer than you") was what was always going to happen.

 

[Scrotnig]

But it was a "difficult descision" so that's fine.

This seems very odd, to put it politely. Dog patrols and £100 fines?

The one justification I can think of if that they may be planning on paying people to make sure that everyone is following social distancing rules and they can only afford that between certain hours (I think that happened in London months ago). But I don't see any suggestion of that.

This is why councils should NEVER be trusted with this sort of thing.
They are run by people who have near-uncontrollable urges to control and micro-manage their populations.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for this restriction whatsoever.
It is the old story - "we need to be seen to be doing 'something', and this is 'something'.

 

[big_rig]

This is why councils should NEVER be trusted with this sort of thing.
They are run by people who have near-uncontrollable urges to control and micro-manage their populations.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for this restriction whatsoever.
It is the old story - "we need to be seen to be doing 'something', and this is 'something'.

I agree. Example from the Council a few weeks ago below - Councillor walking round an empty, massive park creepily berating...two blokes playing with a football and some people far off in the distance ('that's not social distancing, is it') supposedly putting the people at an old folks home 'just round the corner' at risk. As much as I think devolution and all that is a good thing in this case it mostly seems to have enabled the most petty, controlling tendencies in these people.

https://twitter.com/wandbc/status/1294223115107667968

 

[adc82140]

I'd like to know the legalities behind this. I think I'm right in saying that councils have the right to close public spaces. But this has to be in response to incidents such as beach overcrowding I think. In addition, any private security cannot issue fines. They could call the police, but I'm not sure plod would be that impressed to be called out for this.

 

[Mojo]

Went into a Chinese takeaway in "The North" on the weekend.

The divide between the public and staff areas (where the counter is) was completely sealed from top to bottom with a glass partition, with no visible gaps between. A microphone/speaker system was set up so customers could hear the staff and vice versa.

The takeaway is strictly cash only, so a drop box has been set up for customers to deposit their money into. This is then counted through the glass and dunked into a vault, with change issued as required in the same manner.

Food is given to customers through a "hatch" with strict signage to only open said hatch when authorised by a member of staff. Think a kitchen cupboard with a door on both sides.

We struggled to keep a straight face all throughout the whole experience and was so bemused by the whole situation burst out laughing both saying "wtf" to each other as soon as we opened the door to leave.

 

[adc82140]

Are you sure these weren't anti robbery measures?