You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Are Easter eggs non essential? Should the police use drones to shame people on public media? Are we (as former supreme court justice Lord Sumption suggested) headed for a Police state. The NPCC are hurriedly reminding their members that they cannot bar people from driving to exercise, and also suggesting that they cannot enforce a "one exercise a day" on people.
Given that the world has become hard enough for this, do you think the cops have overstepped the mark, and have misread the advice? Or are they just trying to find their way, like the rest of us, in a new and unfamiliar world?
wait til you see what the mods are like on new COVID threads...
I'll start caring once all this is over
The only people I’ve seen seriously moaning about some Peak District drone footage are the people who also call for the police in London to be routinely armed. Some attention grabbing moves were needed after the public decided that stay at home meant weekend in the countryside. The police see their role as being more than protecting middle aged middle classed people from lower class yoofs, they’re trying to stop the spread of a disease that could kill us and them. They are on the frontline of this and need our support, not our self entitled moaning.
I’m more worried about the local community Facebook lynch mobs
My observations would be that police are people too - working with limited and unclear guidance, trying to do their best to protect their communities and their family, scared of the impact that the virus will maybe have. They are working longer shifts to cover the essentials whilst colleagues are self isolating, and many will have had all their leave through easter and early summer cancelled (and many forces had already cancelled leave in hte autumn for the climate change conference that was due to take place. My view is that like most of us they are doing their best.
Police have been spot on AFAIC.
Even if you think some of their actions are OTT (I don't) they have certainly got publicity for the rules. I bet lots of people who didn't realize that you couldn't drive to your exercise are now aware because of media exposure of the Police's actions.
TBH I'm not too worried about the powers they have now, it's more the powers they'll hold on to once the immediate emergency is over. For example one commentator here in Spain was happily bleating on about all of us having tracking software on our phones, to ensure we're complying with any quarantine restrictions that may be put in place. That kind of thing.
Having police officers tied up defending overzealous interpretation of the actual laws by their superiors isn't going to do any of us any good.
people who didn’t realize that you couldn’t drive to your exercise are now aware because of media exposure of the Police’s actions
And yet, legally there is nothing to stop you.
We're in a weird situation where the public mood is more authoritarian than the law.
The police were handed a really difficult job by the Government with unclear regulations. And things like Gove making stuff up on the hoof about 30 minute runs and 1 hour walks is incredibly unhelpful
Police Chiefs are going to set some guidance out - which will help
Some attention grabbing moves were needed after the public decided that stay at home meant weekend in the countryside
A minority of the public
Most people are following the letter and the spirit of the rules.
I'm as annoyed at the dicks taking the piss by driving 40 miles to ride the gnar especially if we end up with a moral panic that restricts my one hour local run. But I think the biggest risk of that is a Daily Mail type overreaction about the minority being ducks
Roadblocks in the countryside will end when looting starts in the towns.
Take a look at the rules in South Africa. No alcohol, cigarette, non-essential sales.
So you can go into a shop, but can't buy a pen or batteries as those are not essential.
No cigarettes for some people will be a major problem too.
We’re in a weird situation where the public mood is more authoritarian than the law.
Stopping the spread relies on the public acting accordingly. If it takes new draconian laws to make that happen, then sadly it may be needed, but let’s try sorting this without a legal lockdown. Please. If people insist on pushing the law to it’s limit, then we’ll all end up living under laws that no one really wants to be introduced, especially the police themselves.
Or are they just trying to find their way, like the rest of us, in a new and unfamiliar world?
Easter eggs are most definitely an essential as they will be a morale booster and give a bit of normality to a situation that people are going to be struggling to cope with.
It’s an issue with vague guidelines that allow too much interpretation and er probably some numpties incapable of realising that they are not in fact Judge Dredd.
And as weeksy says it’s more important after this is over although it would be prudent to see how things play out as a Crisis is is the perfect opportunity for Implementing bad things.
And yet, legally there is nothing to stop you.
Yes there is. You're not allowed to travel except for 13 specific exceptions of which exercise is not one. You can exercise but you can't travel to exercise.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/contents/made
A minority of the public
Hundred of thousands of people. Sadly. That weekend was nuts in outdoor tourist hotspots. Busier than ever.
bet lots of people who didn’t realize that you couldn’t drive to your exercise
Like the Police? There's no rule to stop you, you do understand that, right?
If you need a law to take the right actions, then you’ll get one, and the job of the police will suddenly become next to impossible (and require military involvement). Look at what has had to happen in other countries. Let’s try and avoid those measures.
It’s an issue with vague guidelines that allow too much interpretation
Hastily drafted laws are always bad laws.
Would you rather they'd spent adequate time on it? Properly reviewed it in both houses? Maybe get the new watertight law in places by May 2022?
No nor me.
Let's work with what we have. 99.5pc of people totally get it. The morons who are ignoring it would have probably also ignored a law that had been drafted 'properly' over a couple of years.
Like the Police? There’s no rule to stop you, you do understand that, right?
Yes there is. You’re not allowed to travel except for 13 specific exceptions of which exercise is not one. You can exercise but you can’t travel to exercise.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made
Easter eggs issue wasn’t police - but trading standards / environmental health from local authorities. If someone is going to misinterpret the rules and over exert their authority then local authority clipboard bashers are the people to worry about.
I’m not particularly worried that the police have potentially interpreted the legislation more strictly than they could/should. It’s the purpose of the courts to interpret the law not the bobby on the street. (Unfortunately the courts aren’t functioning normally at the moment so it’s likely the virus has passed before you find out who was right). I’m more concerned that despite it being quite clear that there are acceptable reasons to be outside your home I see social media full of people proclaiming there are not and lambasting everyone else (presumably these are the people with a 12 week supply of toilet rolls and pasta who ignored the please don’t hoard advice). I’m not advocating people go mingling, or making needless trips.
Round here if you were to go for a walk or run on the most obvious routes (the places people normally do) it’s very difficult to maintain 2m as they are genuinely busy - from about 11am to sunset. 15000 people in the town on two real routes. There’s plenty of other places to walk if you just use the now really quiet roads. The covid deaths are easy to count, the long term loss of fitness and mental health issues from being locked up for three months are not so easy.
There’s a lot of people of varying levels of intelligence learning a whole new way of life. Maybe a little leeway and compassion should be afforded in this thread all of those that are experiencing or enforcing their public duty in these challenging and changing times.
Which bit of spread do people not get? If you visit an area, you risk spreading the virus to that area, and to the areas that other visitors come from. STAY THE **** AT HOME! The police are doing what they can to get the message out there.
OOB that legislation you keep referring to, isn't the one you think it is. It's the one that grants powers to the Police to detain people they reasonably suspect of actually having Covid-19, and sets out powers to detains them and restrict their movements.
Which is why it's useful that the NPCC are putting together guidelines.
A clear set of rules will make it more comfortable for everyone
PURITY SPIRAL!!
Which is why it’s useful that the NPCC are putting together guidelines.
Yep. Inconsistency isn't helping the public or the police
Arse spiral.
OOB that legislation you keep referring to, isn’t the one you think it is.
Thanks edited to correct the link in the second post. Too late for the first post.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/madeblockquote >Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;
(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(3), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;
(e)to donate blood;
(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(g)to attend a funeral of—
(i)a member of the person’s household,
(ii)a close family member, or
(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;
(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;
(i)to access critical public services, including—
(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);
(ii)social services;
(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);
(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;
(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;
(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;
(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.
It would help if the police upheld the law and not whatever todays press Minister has said. The law is reasonably drafted, the enforcement of it is being poorly implemented.
Anybody mentioning non-essential travel is NOT applying the law as this is not mentioned in the legislation. A principle of our law is anything not forbidden is allowed.
For clarity I have changed my mind from my original thoughts on this after a lot of reading as I was one of those who supported the Derbyshire approach. I now see that this is conducive to policing by consent and officers remaining of the public while protecting the public.
It would help if the police upheld the law and not whatever todays press Minister has said.
If you want insanely tight laws to stop the spread, you’ll get them. To avoid that follow the “advice” and “guidance” and don’t be a legal loophole chasing dick.
It's interesting that Lord Sumption chose to highlight that "Police State" in his mind refers to not some vast scope of draconian powers given to the Police, but in fact vague powers hastily drawn and interpreted by the Police in the way they think that a Govt would like.
Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, [...]
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
So legally there's nothing to stop you driving to the Peak District to go for a walk. Not saying it's a good idea, but legally the police can do nothing to stop you. (And presumably if they do try to stop you they themselves are breaking the law).
Police are trying to do a really tough job in difficult circumstances. Anyone criticising them needs to have a good long think about whether you are being part of a solution or adding to their problems.
Lots of organisations will need to have a "lessons learnt" exercise when this is finally over. They don't need heckling from the internet sidelines while they are in the middle of it trying to keep the public safe.
Outofbreath; that 'stuff' doesn't say you can only go out once a day....
It puts no limit on the number of excursions it just says you should have a "reasonable excuse" for each trip :o)
And I'm not being a Dick - just pointing out the problem with recent interpretations and how other interpretations are also valid.
It’s interesting that Lord Sumption chose to highlight that “Police State” in his mind refers to not some vast scope of draconian powers given to the Police, but in fact vague powers hastily drawn and interpreted by the Police in the way they think that a Govt would like.
So what? It's a national catastrophe. We've all consented to temporarily live under house arrest for a period of time under rules that in any other circumstances would be widely ignored (and if enforced would lead to the government being forcibly overthrown).
The crisis will end within a year or so. There's near zero chance the rules will stay in place once the crisis ends and if they do there's 60 million people who will forcibly ensure the rules end and the army and the police force will be on 'our' side.
Putting dye in lakes and using drones in such a manner is unacceptable no matter what.
So legally there’s nothing to stop you driving to the Peak District to go for a walk
Quite. This is the issue that Lord Sumption highlights. and neatly identified by the likes of OOB who think that the rules say one thing, when they can clearly say quite the opposite.
We’ve all consented to temporarily live under house arrest
ummmm, really? That's what you think has happened? wow.
Indeed, the laws are loose. If you wanted to you could find ways of just getting on with everything you’d normally do. But then you’d be a dick.
Driving to the Peak District for exercise is not a reasonable excuse. Go for a walk from your door.
“Stop Being a Dick” is even being used by police on social media.
OOB
Yes there is. You’re not allowed to travel except for 13 specific exceptions of which exercise is not one. You can exercise but you can’t travel to exercise.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made/blockquote >
If you look at the SI you are quoting, restrictions on movement, section 6 paragraph b states "to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;" as one of those 13 exceptions. ?
My observations would be that police are people too – working with limited and unclear guidance, trying to do their best to protect their communities and their family, scared of the impact that the virus will maybe have.
this
That lord whosit is just being a twerp
There is no law to stop us ALL driving to the Peak District today and riding in pairs. The Police could tell us all that the advice is that we shouldn’t be doing so, but they could not stop us. They would be right to tell us what the advice is. They would be wrong to arrest us for not following it. They would also, in my opinion, be right in calling us all out as dicks.
If we don’t do what needs doing to stop the spread, many more doctors will die. At that point the law might have to be changed to deal with arses who fight back against pleas for us to modify our behaviour during this difficult time.
that ‘stuff’ doesn’t say you can only go out once a day
I didn't say it did & nobody in this thread is arguing about "once a day".
...but if you want to argue about that, ff course the test is 'need'. The prosecution simply has to make the case that you don't "need" more than one exercise outside session a day and I'd have thought they'd easily win that except for people with very rare medical situations that require multiple exercise sessions outdoors.
I tend towards the idea that questioning those in power (even in extraordinary circumstances) does not make one necessarily "a dick"
For what it’s worth my local Police Service are being very good imho, they’re tweeting about people they’ve stopped flouting the rules but they’ve always been stopped for no insurance, speeding etc first. They’re not just routinely stopping people (in cars or on foot) apart from a few spots they’ve set up (they’re avoiding the term road block) like Barry Island / Story Arms etc.
The problem with Warrington Police’s social media output is it seems almost bullying in it language. U.K. Police do so by consent, if they use these emergency powers to make it a draconian police state then people with flout the rules just because they don’t want to be bound by them.
And I don’t care how civil minded the average Police Officer is, they won’t want to give them up after this is over.
OOB
But it does not say that you CAN NOT drive to exercise.
That's the issue. It says what you can do: vis-a-vis leave your house 'to take exercise alone or....etc.' in the same way as it says you can leave the house 'to donate blood' or 'to fulfil legal obligations' or 'obtain basic necessities' and so on.
No-one (I think, but this is STW) says you can't take your car to the supermarket. We know some have different views on the advisability of taking a short (or long drive) to get exercise but legally it is in the same legislation with the same wording and therefore unless you also say the law says that you have to walk to the supermarket as well then your argument is inconsistent.
I tend towards the idea that questioning those in power (even in extraordinary circumstances) does not make one necessarily “a dick”
I tend towards travelling unnecessarily is being a dick.
Putting dye in lakes and using drones in such a manner is unacceptable no matter what.
Bollocks. The number of people getting into trouble in that lake, and putting rescuers at risk, was getting silly. Regularly on the local news.
And using drones to show people up for meeting up, having BBQs, travelling from Ipswich to the Peak - seems fine to me. The message got through as it was much quieter last weekend. Job done.
I don't care if anyone sensibilities got offended by it.
Mranwhile yesterday my other half phoned 101 to report dirt bikes on the canal towpath and some other footpaths and bridleways who almost run her the dog and my son over and was told they were legal....ffs had it been normal times I'd have been down the station complaining. I understand they might well be too busy to do amything but to try and pass it off as legal is ****ing awful!
They put dye in that lake every spring because it is massively toxic and not safe to swim in. Nothing to do with Covid.
ummmm, really? That’s what you think has happened? wow.
If not that, what do you think is happening?
So legally there’s nothing to stop you driving to the Peak District to go for a walk.
Not at all. The exception is to exercise outside of your house if you need to. The exception is not to drive to somewhere nice to exercise. No doubt some disabled people genuinely need to drive as part of their outside exercise but most of us wouldn't pass the need test.
The word 'need' can do a lot of heavy lifting!
Yes there is. You’re not allowed to travel except for 13 specific exceptions of which exercise is not one. You can exercise but you can’t travel to exercise.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made/blockquote >
The legislation you keep quoting contradicts the point you are trying to make. It explicitly says you CAN leave home to exercise and does NOT say you can't travel to do it.
But 'unnecessary' is interpretative in itself. That's the issue. People can make the case that it's necessary to drive a short distance with minimal risk to a place where you can walk away from others - necessary to allow you to observe proper social distancing, for example. Making the case that you can drive 50 miles because the Peaks are nice in the sunshine, is IMHO way harder, but it's still possible for them to interpret that it is a/ allowed and b/ necessary for say their mental health. I'm not saying they'd be right....just that they could interpret it that way and make a case.
Just because you disagree doesn't make you right or them a dick. You just have different opinions, and if we've learnt nothing since June 2016, we should have learned that ganging up on folk and calling them dicks doesn't change their minds.
Kelvin - pointing out issues with the new law doesn't mean that we are going to act outside the spirit they were drafted - in fact it is useful to highlight the problems so it can be addressed before it becomes a major issue for the police.
I'll say this one last time then step away - the guidelines the NPCC are drawing up will really help as it will clearly define the detail of the law and the approach to police.
Everyone can then stop arguing about whether it's legal to drive to exercise or not etc etc. My view is that it isn't legal and certainly outside the spirit of the regs, but it really isn't clear and that lack of clarity is really unhelpful for everyone
I tend towards travelling unnecessarily is being a dick.
social shaming? Personally I don't think many people are hopping into their cars or onto buses/trains to make "unnecessary journeys". It was reported today that the motorway networks have never been quieter. As many folk have pointed out, what's more risky, making a solo car journey to a remote location, or walking in a park with hundreds of others?
Northumbria police are pretty clear on it.
“Exercise should take place around the immediate area of where you live so we can all help mitigate against the spread of the infection. People should not be travelling away from their home to carry this out.
social shaming? Personally I don’t think many people are hopping into their cars or onto buses/trains to make “unnecessary journeys”. It was reported today that the motorway networks have never been quieter. As many folk have pointed out, what’s more risky, making a solo car journey to a remote location, or walking in a park with hundreds of others?
No not now the Police are checking areas and reasons why are people are there. The roads are quite as people are working from home, out of a job or not travelling unnecessarily. It’s not just a case of what’s worse just stop travelling unnecessarily it’s that simple.
I’ll say this one last time then step away – the guidelines the NPCC are drawing up will really help as it will clearly define the detail of the law and the approach to police.
If the NPCC are defining the detail of the law things really have gone wrong!
I tend towards the idea that questioning those in power (even in extraordinary circumstances) does not make one necessarily “a dick”
In times of national crisis I think it does.
Christ, in WW2 some newspapers were banned for undermining the governments position. It isn't democracy but it was the right decision. Once the war was over everything went back to normal as it will in this case.
I don’t think many people are hopping into their cars or onto buses/trains to make “unnecessary journeys”
They absolutely were. The Police have helped get the message out there not to. Most people have modified their behaviour. Well done the Police.
This thing is going to be damaging enough to society without people in power misusing that power. Well done to Lord Sumption for pointing that out.
Christ, in WW2 some newspapers were banned for undermining the governments position
such as?
I think you'll find in fact that most newspaper in the 30's and 40's were (like today) owned by individuals and weren't shy of using them to express their own positions and attempts at political influence. You only need look at the Express, and the News of World who were hugely critical of Chamberlains running of the war effort in the "Bore war"
The legislation you keep quoting contradicts the point you are trying to make. It explicitly says you CAN leave home to exercise and does NOT say you can’t travel to do it.
It shouldn't have to... Common sense should tell you that. This isn't a video game where you just go back to the last saved point.
If you get it and die, that's it mate, you're dead, gone. Or your parents, friends, family, sons, daughters, aunts, all of them, most could be infected by some random idiot who decided to head outside their normal local circle and infects 1-2 by chance, who infect another 10... and someone you love dies unnecessarily.
I'm shocked people can't see this
I don’t care if anyone sensibilities got offended by it.
I guess when the Taliban blew up those ancient buddhist monuments they had the same sort of sentiment.
Christ, in WW2 some newspapers were banned for undermining the governments position. It isn’t democracy but it was the right decision. Once the war was over everything went back to normal as it will in this case.
You're really comparing a military situation like WW2 with a foreign power actively doing what it could to defeat its enemies, and a completely civil medical emergency? The police need emergency powers, I don't think anyone here is saying that's wrong, but equally those powers should be limited and not freely interpreted by individual police officers. Given the way the anti-terrorist legislation has been used to justify actions that have little to do with terrorism I think it's perfectly reasonable that people should be vigilant and critical when they're overstepped.
Everyone can then stop arguing about whether it’s legal to drive to exercise or not etc etc. My view is that it isn’t legal and certainly outside the spirit of the regs, but it really isn’t clear and that lack of clarity is really unhelpful for everyone
I'd agree. However, these rules (if ever challenged) are going to be interpreted by a judge. The intention behind these rules is 100pc clear and the judge will take that into account when he decides what 'need' means.
Having said all that who on earth is going to go to refuse the fixed penalty go to court and then appeal to clarify the law? By the time that happens the crisis will be over would the government even contest it?
So AFAIC no judge will ever decide that driving to exercise meets the "need" test for 'normal' people and that interpretation will never be challenged.
should be limited
They are *very* strictly time limited.
It’s not just a case of what’s worse just stop travelling unnecessarily it’s that simple.
You would make an excellent politician, don't answer the question asked, answer the one you want. 🙂
I’m shocked people can’t see this
The overwhelming majority do see that. The ones not following the rules now are a minority.
I am hugely supportive of the police in general and they have been dealt a shitty hand of cards here in trying to police a piece of woolly legislation. However the principle of policing by consent is so important that real damage could be done, long term to the public's relationship with them, if they get it wrong. To me it comes down to this. No one should be arrested, fined, publically shamed in drone footage etc unless they have broken a law which has been passed by parliament. Not broken "guidelines", not gone against the whims of a cabinet minister, local council or chief constable but broken the law. If the law needs to be re-drafted because it's unclear then so be it, but the idea of the police imposing politician's or chief constables edicts without legislation is seriously wrong. It is not the police's job to "shame" people, it's their job to uphold the law. Most are getting it right, but imo Derbyshire massively overstepped the mark and are rightly getting flak for it, not least from fellow cops.
If the NPCC are defining the detail of the law things really have gone wrong!
You do realise NPCC employ solicitors and instruct Counsel so quite often define details of law and a suitable approach for their members? In the current absence of effective timely judiciary who else do you expect to do this?
Christ, in WW2 some newspapers were banned for undermining the governments position.
such as?
Morning Star:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper)
Apparently... my neighbour was stopped in his car by the police yesterday, when asked where he was going his reply was "shopping", they asked to see his shopping list and shopping bags, he had neither, they apparently told him to go home or he would be fined.
I say apparently as I wasn't there and he can be somewhat belligerent.
Is clarity really needed for anyone other than self righteous dicks?
The 'rule' for minimising travel when not essential is basic common sense, as it reduces the possibility of transmission. End of. Bending, or stretching the rules or guidance because you think you are special, is not big or clever.
TBH I find it highly amusing that an Eton educated Tory is being quoted to try to undermine Police actions and justify the idea that we can all hop in our cars and bugger off to the countryside!
Northumbria police are pretty clear on THEIR INTERPRETATION OF it.
FTFY
I guess when the Taliban blew up those ancient buddhist monuments they had the same sort of sentiment.
Obviously that's exactly what I meant.
Some people like to take an argumentative position for the sheer hell of it don't they?
"Take an argumentative position" was not my first choice of words, obviously.
The ‘rule’ for minimising travel when not essential
To avoid any doubt, what's your interpretation of minimise and essential?
The regs look a bit confusing to me ...
It says no leaving the hous except for essential etc etc.
It then goes on to day no public gatherings of more than 2 people.
So case in point, after doing some shopping last sunday (essential) my ex dropped our shared dog off with me in the car park. 2 min exchange. (non essential but not breaking the 'more than 2 people gathering in public' rule.
Offence or not?
You do realise NPCC employ solicitors and instruct Counsel so quite often define details of law and a suitable approach for their members? In the current absence of effective timely judiciary who else do you expect to do this?
I imagine they define their interpretation of the law, which can then be challenged in court. And poorly-defined laws allow them lots of leeway. Given, as you point out, there's a "current abscence of effective timely judiciary" I'd say it's more important than ever that the press and the public maintain a close eye on this interpretation, and if necessary raise a critical voice.