Well the government are damned either way then. Some say they are not doing enough then complain when the police try to do a little bit more.
It’s difficult to take into account the specific situations of 66 million people.
Which is precisely my point about the regulations needing to have flexibility in their interpretation. Rigidity is always wrong.
The latest police chief making a prononuncement to his force has got it right. Explaining on radio today, he has told his officers to use their commonsense and given clear indications of what they
must not do to enforce the detail of the law, such as asking for proof that their journey is for shopping.
Many government ministers have also got it right when instructing the public to "try to" and adding "as far as possible". Those leave enough flexibility to take into account individual circumstances where a rigid law enforcement can actually threaten someone's safety, which is my circumstance in more than one way.
The problem arises with the odd minister like Matt Hancock who was stupid enough to threaten inflexible enforcement, and with police chiefs, police officers and some Councils taking a foolishly unnecessary hard line.
The proof is in how many times the government have had to backtrack, such as telling the police to ease up, telling the councils to open parks again after first telling them to shut their parks, now easing up on driving in some circumstances. Today's example is telling anyone breeding dogs that they can after all deliver the puppies to those people who were to receive them, wherever they are. That isn't only commercial breeders but anyone rearing puppies.
Further easing is needed if the hard liners don't stop being cussed. For example the majority of dog owners cannot comply with the ruling that we are only allowed one trip out for exercise each day. Most dogs need to be taken out twice a day, and I know one owner who for her own health reasons needs to take her dog out four times each day.
Flexibly applying the law with commonsense allows those to happen, the letter of the law doesn't.
So the choice is simple:
A) Be flexible.
B) Rigidly enforce but provide so many exemptions that no-one is able to understand what the law is any more, or enforce it.
The cycling on the pavement law is a classic example of why B is silly. So many exemptions and circumstances to exempt that the police have given up and don't try to enforce, making the existence of that law pointless.
.