A lot of dispute about whether sunbathing/ going to the park constitues a reasoanble excuse under the Coronvirus Regs and, furthermore, whether it should be subject to (moral) scrutiny at all. 1/

The Regs are secondary legislation (i.e. not scrutinised by Parliament) and have very significant infringement on human rights. They were also rushed through and there are discernable difficulties in interepeting parts. 2/

But here's the rubric: people are dying. 3/

Discussion of the law and impact on rights is essential. But so is saving lives. Hedging-bets on a literal interpretation of the Regs belies their relatively clear purpose, which is qualified through messages repeatedly given by the government. 4/

The government want people to stay at home unless it is necessary they leave. Is there wide room for interpretation of the law? Yes. Does that mean it needs legal scrutiny? Most likely. Does it means it's extent ought to be put to the test? No. 5/

Reasonableness' must be interpreted as a balance between important rights and the need to lessen the risk of passing on a deadly virus. 6/

Adhering to social distancing lessens the risk, but does not remove it. Thus, it is in that context - that you may unintentionally pass a virus on to someone else - that your right to leave the house and relax must be assessed. 7/

Is your trip to the beach, or to the park sufficiently important so as to run that risk? In some cases, it may be. But in many, most probably not. 8/

Police officers do not enjoy asking people to not do things that would normally be bot only lawful, but a normal part of a civilised society. 9/

Forget what the law has to say about it, think of it as a civic duty: voluntarily stay indoors unless you consider it necessary not to (whether that be for a reason under the Regs or something else) and help save other people's lives. 10/end