Can I pick a family member up

TooManyPoints

Yes, but all that aside, the regulations are centred around having a "reasonable excuse" to leave home. It says you must not do so unless you have one and it usefully provides a non-exhaustive list of common "reasonable excuses". Leaving home to pick up somebody to come and stay with you (whether for a day or a year) is not among them. So it comes down to whether a police officer would agree that making a lengthy journey to collect somebody in these circumstances amounts to a reasonable excuse. 

Scrapit

Deleted_User said:

You are more at risk flitting to the supermarket every other day (which most of the judgemental people seem to do) than you have driving in your car without coming into contact with the public.

You know you are being judgemental with this post right? Ironic.

sheramber

Deleted_User said:

You are more at risk flitting to the supermarket every other day (which most of the judgemental people seem to do) than you have driving in your car without coming into contact with the public.

And what evidence  do you have that they ' flit to the supermarket every other day'?
I , for one, am self isolating and have not been near a supermarket , or any other shop, since lockdown began. 

sheramber

The only opinion that matters is that of the policeman who stops your car and asks what is your reasonable  excuse  for your journey.
A policeman on patrol, checking cars, advised on TV  that he checked cars with more than one person in them  or those registered to an  address outwith the immediate area.
 

Car_54

sheramber said:

The only opinion that matters is that of the policeman who stops your car and asks what is your reasonable  excuse  for your journey.

I believe we still have a system where the opinion of a magistrate or jury matters more than that of a policeman.

452

Car_54 said:

sheramber said:

The only opinion that matters is that of the policeman who stops your car and asks what is your reasonable  excuse  for your journey.

I believe we still have a system where the opinion of a magistrate or jury matters more than that of a policeman.

If the policeman thinks its reasonable to make the journey then why would their opinion matter more?

Mercdriver

452 said:

Car_54 said:

sheramber said:

The only opinion that matters is that of the policeman who stops your car and asks what is your reasonable  excuse  for your journey.

I believe we still have a system where the opinion of a magistrate or jury matters more than that of a policeman.

If the policeman thinks its reasonable to make the journey then why would their opinion matter more?

In our criminal system, evidence of innocence is not required, whereas evidence of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt is.  

452

Mercdriver said:

452 said:

Car_54 said:

sheramber said:

The only opinion that matters is that of the policeman who stops your car and asks what is your reasonable  excuse  for your journey.

I believe we still have a system where the opinion of a magistrate or jury matters more than that of a policeman.

If the policeman thinks its reasonable to make the journey then why would their opinion matter more?

In our criminal system, evidence of innocence is not required, whereas evidence of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt is.  

There will be no need to prove guilt if the police officer thinks it's reasonable. 

Herzlos

We're advised to use discretion and travel only if necessary. Helping someone move into your house could be necessary - public transport is a risk and what if he has stuff to bring up?
I'd make sure you had some proof of the need though, at least text messages confirming a pick up time and location.

Mercdriver

452 said:

Mercdriver said:

452 said:

Car_54 said:

sheramber said:

The only opinion that matters is that of the policeman who stops your car and asks what is your reasonable  excuse  for your journey.

I believe we still have a system where the opinion of a magistrate or jury matters more than that of a policeman.

If the policeman thinks its reasonable to make the journey then why would their opinion matter more?

In our criminal system, evidence of innocence is not required, whereas evidence of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt is.  

There will be no need to prove guilt if the police officer thinks it's reasonable. 

My point is that the ultimate decision to say it is reasonable is the policeman's whereas the ultimate decision unless the object of the decision accepts a FPN is a third party, and the test is stricter.  The policeman has quite a lot of discretion at his disposal he doesn't need to prove reasonableness beyond reasonable doubt whereas a court would have to prove UNresaonableness beyond reasonable doubt.  So the policeman's decision effectively carries more weight if he says it is reasonable.