Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
I think the message of common sense is a good one. If you make it very prescriptive there will always be people with valid reasons to break the rules. e.g. you can only travel 5 km to go shopping. What if you live 5.2km from "the shop"? What if you really do live 20km from nearest shop? You can exercise for 1hr, what if you cycled out for 30 mins and on way back had a bike problem or the road is closed forcing a detour over 30 mins? If you prescribe things you have to prescribe exceptions and counter exceptions and so on.
To high-jack Brexit type issue, it's why Eurorules work in some places not others or it gets very complex in countries that have very precise legal frameworks. It's why rules on benefits are complex to try to ensure the entitled are helped but not those who don't need it. The story continues with other areas of life.
So a general relaxation with emphasis on "common sense" both to behaviour and policing of behaviour.
Unfortunately those that abuse common sense either because they are selfish or simple lack any can spoil things for the majority. As at the start before lockdown when it was hinted not to travel beauty spots recorded record visitor levels.
|
As you have stated above re the police, the problem with the common sense methodology is whilst it's a great idea it in theory it also requires the use of the police service and other enforcement agencies to use the same amount of common sense.
The police have been shown to not be using common sense in multiple cases since the beginning of the lockdown.
It's perfectly common sense in my mind to do many things, but would the police have the same mind? possibly, possibly not. Is there a legal definition for common sense that can be applied in court?