Jessica Allen, Eliza Moore and Derbyshire Police - a brief thread

First, what happened? Well, it seems two friends got in separate cars and drove five miles to a reservoir to go for a walk with coffees in their hands. They were stopped by police and fined for (it appears) breaching the restriction on leaving or being outside one’s home...
... without a reasonable excuse set out in part 1 para 1 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020. They did this, it appears, because they saw the distance travelled *for* the exercise - and the fact beverages for consumption...
... had been brought by the walkers, as depriving the women of the defence provided by para. 2(2)(c) of the Regulations. That provision says you can leave or be outside your home if it is “reasonably necessary” to do so “to take exercise outside... alone, with one or more...
... members of their household, their linked household, or... 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, or...
in a public outdoor place, with one other person...
... who is not a member of their household, their linked household or their linked childcare household...”
Did the police get it wrong? Almost certainly, because they confused the issue of the distance travelled (and the general “reasonableness” of that act, in the current circumstances) with the question of whether the women had a reasonable excuse “to be outside”.
Were the women each outside for the purposes of taking exercise outside with one other person? Patently, yes. Exercise is defined in the OED as “Activity requiring physical effort, carried out to sustain or improve health and fitness.”
Taking a walk in pleasant country surroundings is commonly held to boost both physical *and* mental health - as any GP will tell you.
But what about the coffees? Well, as it is perfectly possible to walk while holding coffees - otherwise takeaway coffees would never have taken off - and few or even no breaks in the exercise are needed to drink them, the coffees are entirely irrelevant.
That it is lawful to drive five or more miles for a walk may make some feel uncomfortable but as the Court of Appeal has so often pointed out, it is for Parliament to pass the laws it wishes to see obeyed. Should the govt wish therefore to restrict exercise to local exercise...
this could readily be achieved through a simple amendment to the Regulations adding in a clear restriction on the geographical limits to the exercise exemption; notably, at no stage of the development of these Regulations has Parliament done so. ]

More from Legal

At the root of my work is safeguarding human life. I support a massive buildout of public transit because it makes life fundamentally better, reduces greenhouse emissions, and saves lives. 1/

In the United States, car accidents are one of the leading causes of death and injury for children under the age of 18.
https://t.co/RrYVtaoFRd 2/

A few years ago my family and I were driving from visiting relatives in Texas when we were stuck in traffic on the I-10. We were at a complete dead stop when a woman (texting) in a Suburban hit us at 70 mph. She crushed the back of our car like a soda can. 3/


Thankfully, our two-year-old was in a good carseat and I absorbed the brunt of the injuries with a few shards of glass in my scalp. I won't show those pictures! While a high speed rail network along the Gulf Coast may have not prevented that accident, it could prevent most. 4/

Electrifying household appliances will reduce our 'dependence' on natural gas and transmission methane leaks, but the switch will also cut the number of carbon monoxide poisonings and natural gas related explosions that kill Americans everyday. 5/
Transferring power back to you, the ppl
https://t.co/26N2YYXycn


Heart attacks can be dangerous

Changing of the Old Guard
Best of the Best

Battle of the Bulge
https://t.co/MpYwQFkhmy


Thunder indicates a storm is


Silent Run'g ..... Can u hear him

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?