UK government digitally signed my penis!

It appears that the COVID-19 QR code generator government web site does not allow emojis, but it does allow hieroglyphs, so it seems I have managed to have the UK government digitally sign a penis.

The QR code, signed by the government/NHS, includes

{"id":"53WVKKW5","opn":"𓂸","vt":"005","pc":"SW1A2AA"}

I know it is childish, sorry, and you definitely should not check in to 10 Downing Street by using this barcode, obviously. That would be bad. It does show how daft it is making these QR codes so huge by digitally signing them though.  See the other blog post for more details on these QR codes, and what else is wrong with them.

There is a practical use though - making a QR code for your own home will allow you to "check out" of where you have been, otherwise the app assumes you were there until Midnight.

For those with character set challenges, this is what it looks like

How not to QR (NHS COVID-19 App)

There is now law requiring (from 24th Sep) a QR code to be displayed in various premises so people can scan it in to the NHS COVID-19 App. See The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Collection of Contact Details etc and Related Requirements) Regulations 2020. The law has plenty of issues, but let's look at those QR codes...

It seems you can request the QR code poster for your venue, see here. The poster is emailed to you.

This is an example.

This is not how you do it - and I wonder if they got any technical advice from anyone on the matter first.

What's in this huge QR code?

The content of that QR code is: UKC19TRACING:1:eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IllycWVMVHE4ei1vZkg1bnpsYVNHbllSZkI5YnU5eVBsV1lVXzJiNnFYT1EifQ.eyJpZCI6IlJLWTMyV01SIiwib3BuIjoiUFVCTElDIFRFTEVQSE9ORSIsInZ0IjoiMDA1IiwicGMiOiJMRTE4M1RFIn0.ix66d7uRe_vhpB4BPb0Nzbq2vEC3IShdX7UOqfp0XVyg7YI88R_bOCY1DpgQZo9dy07xcga4e1MTmcKV9ZHi1A

The data contained is an RFC7515 JSON Web Signature (JWS) base64 coded string which contains:-

• {"alg":"ES256","kid":"YrqeLTq8z-ofH5nzlaSGnYRfB9bu9yPlWYU_2b6qXOQ"}
• {"id":"RKY32WMR","opn":"PUBLIC TELEPHONE","vt":"005","pc":"LE183TE"}
• Binary signature

So what's wrong?

• It is not user friendly - and requires the app installed first so you can use it (see below). This is perhaps the biggest issue. P.S. even with app installed, they have not hooked the QR code to the app, as they could have, so could be used from camera app - just lazy!
• This QR code is far too big (i.e. dense)! The denser the code the harder to read reliably. There is no need for it to be this dense. A small code is quicker and easier to read.
• One reason it is dense is poor choice of QR encoding options. It could be less dense with exact same content easily.
• Another reason it is too dense is that the content is base64 coded JSON which itself contains base64 binary. This is crazy. The actual underlying data is quite small, and even signing it, it does not have to be anywhere near as big.
• Another reason it is too dense is they have chosen to sign the data, which is pointless (see below)
• Another reason it is too dense is they have chosen to encode some simple data (venue ID and name) in JSON, when there really is no need.
• You have to use the gov web site to make the QR code, a large company could not, for example, automate making posters for all their sites centrally.
• This is not actually a valid QR code! Yes, pretty much everything will read it, but the specification requires a 4 unit white space all around, and this does not have that - it has grey at 2 units and text within the whitespace area.
• If you request a poster more than once for a venue, you get a different venue code, so the app will see each poster as a separate venue, it seems. I can easily see that happening as it may be easier to request a new poster than to find the PDF / email you previously saved if you need to print more.
• Oh, and the instructions are to display the poster and ask people to scan it with the app, as soon as you get it, even though the app is not actually working yet, so people cannot scan it with the app!
• The poster has no link to where to get the app, just the store you have to search, and guess what, searching does not work (depending on exactly what you type):-

In summary this is thrown together with some standard libraries and very little actual thought - is not even a valid QR code, and is going to be a mess with every waiter now expected to provide tech support on app installation on Android and iPhone to every customer that comes along - but this is very much what we have come to expect.

On another small technical point, base64 is a bad choice in a QR code. If designed for just the app to read, use binary coding which is 100% efficient (one dot per bit, before any ECC). Base64, however, uses byte coding, so 8 bits for each base64 character which holds 6 bits of data, so 75% efficient. If you don't want to use binary, use base32 which uses alphanumeric QR coding, 5½ bits for each character which holds 5 bits of data, so 91% efficient.

How to make it more user friendly

Many people have QR readers built in to their phone, for example an iPhone will pop up with a link from the camera app itself, so there is a really simple trick for this - make the QR code a URL which the app can read as data, but if used simply as a URL itself you end up going to a web site which redirects you to the app or the app store to download the app. The data can be after a # in the URL so not even sent to the server when used as a URL. This allows it to be used from the app or from the camera, and helps for people that don't yet have the app, and those that mistakenly did not realise they have to launch the app first. It makes it a lot simpler to use.

It is not hard, basically, instead of UKC19TRACING:1:blah use https://c19qr.uk/#blah
(well, obviously, an nhs.uk domain would be used)

(Update: Just to clarify, the use of a URL at the start is not to make the QR code usage rely on an internet connection or a web site in any way. If the app is installed it would be used purely as a version/ID confirmation, like the UKC19TRACING:1: string, and the app would then just use the data in the QR code, not visit a web site. The URL is there to make it easy for people to use from camera, and to install the app in the first place).

Why is a "big" QR code a bad idea?

I have added this to clarify a little why the large / dense QR code is not ideal.

For a start, from a purely technical point of view, it is just unnecessary. You need some extra data to avoid confusion with other uses of QR codes, which is what the UKC19TRACING: is for, and ideally a version, which is what the 1: is for. Beyond that you just need the actual data (location code, postcode, and venue name, in this case). There is no need for extra syntax (e.g. JSON). Indeed, some careful choice of data (e.g. using digits, or upper case letters and digits) can make the QR coding even more efficient. But this is far from the only reason.

In ideal conditions it does not matter if you have a large/dense QR code. As someone that has been messing with barcodes for around 40 years, I have no trouble using a camera phone to read a barcode. I know what hoops the phone / software is going through to make it work and how best to position the camera. But I cringe watching people do this and struggle (notably, someone I know reading lottery ticket QR codes). They (understandably) don't know how these things work and will randomly try getting closer or further away, usually the wrong way, not waiting for camera to focus, etc, eventually reading the code.

The way it works is the camera has to be able to see the units, i.e. the black and white squares that make up the code. The camera itself has pixels (dots) with which it can see. If the camera was perfectly aligned and square you could read a QR code with one such pixel per unit, but that never happens, and in practice you need a lot more. Throw in the possibility of poor focus, glare and reflection from glass / perspex, dirty lens, and the QR code at an angle, and you need even more. Thankfully most modern camera phones are high resolution enough to cope and read a very large and dense QR code. Not all phone cameras are made equal and some are much lower resolution and slower to focus. Print quality also matters, and whilst most printers are very good, remember this is also intended to be used displayed on a screen. The QR code itself includes error correction which allows some imperfections and errors to be corrected, but this can only help so much.

Even so, perhaps the biggest issue with a large and dense QR code is the range of distance between the code and the camera. This is a thing I observe people struggling with, for some reason. With a low density QR code the camera can read it when it is small in the view of the camera. Also, when it is small in the view, they do not have to point directly at it, it can be off to one side, etc. With a large / dense QR code the camera needs to be closer, with the QR code filling more of the frame. So the usable distance range where the code can be read relates directly to how dense the QR code is. The more usable range, the easier it is for the user to get it right first time and not hold up a queue of people trying to get in to a bar.

Of course the other issue is how big you print it. The guideline for this is to print at least A4. Why? Because it is so dense. A smaller code could be printed much smaller and still be easy to use. I note, for example, Costa have small table menu cards with the check-in QR codes they used (which are nice and small) on them, and they are much smaller than A4.

One final reason is confusion and paranoia. I already see people on twitter asking what the hell is in this huge QR code. People are concerned that it obviously contains a lot of data and it is not obvious why. The whole project has suffered from privacy concerns already, and this does not help.

Why is signing daft?

Signing means that there is an extra chunk of information in the QR code (making it a lot bigger/denser) that ensures the data is genuine, i.e. that it definitely came from the government QR code generator web page. There are many good reasons to sign things, but not in this case.

The signing a tad daft as :-

• Anyone can make a code for anywhere on the gov web site, and it gets signed.
• You can copy a code from somewhere else and it is signed.
• It makes the QR massive! and so harder to scan.
• Obviously not done to try and avoid vulnerabilities, as one can get 
  سمَـَّوُوُحخ ̷̴̐خ ̷̴̐خ ̷̴̐خ امارتخ signed, no problem (which some may remember would crash iPhones).
• To be quite frank, it would not be as fun making a barcode for Specsavers in Barnard Castle if the QR code was essentially just a postcode and name, and not government signed.
• If, instead of signing, they just published a specification (as done by other countries), large companies with lots of sites could have made posters for all their venues centrally and easily as well as allowing individual posters via the gov website.

Whilst this is not quite the way the track and trace process works, if some establishment did not want to risk being shut down, they could put the barcode for a competitor, maybe with a vague establishment name in the QR code, so not obvious when using the app. The gov website lets you make a signed QR code for anywhere, and even if they did not, you can literally copy a signed QR code you can see anywhere, and it is still signed.

A further update (Oct 20th) shows the signing checking did not even work on Android!

What I couldn't say in this discussion before, and can say now, is that the signature verification was fluffed on the Android app: https://t.co/zmJ55fyPQk

— zofrex (@zofrex) October 21, 2020

And yes, they will sign almost anything. Emojis seem to be banned, but hieroglyphs are not. So I seem to have got the UK Government to digitally sign a penis!

{"id":"53WVKKW5","opn":"𓂸","vt":"005","pc":"SW1A2AA"}

How it could be a lot less dense, so easier to read

As an example, if I just include the actual data, and some sort of signature (an MD5 in this case, there are many ways to sign things), and a URL prefix to get the app (which acts as ID/version), you could make a code like this... Way less dense, and easier to use.

If you don't sign the data (and why would you?)

All that is really needed in the code is the location, a postcode with DPS, e.g. LE183TE9Z, or maybe just a UPRN (Unique Property Reference Number), e.g. 100032050996. The postcode/DPS may be better as you can then quote the venue postcode in the app. You probably do need the venue name as well to quote in the app. That is not a lot of data that is actually needed.

If you do that, you can make a code like this which has a URL, UPRN, and premises name in it, and is way less dense and easier to scan.

With just a postcode/DPS it is possible to go even smaller!

Is the app OK though?

Just to be clear, this is criticism of the QR code not the track and trace app. There is a blog on that which is quite interesting, but does not explain why they felt it necessary to sign the QR codes, or why they did not make them a URL format for easy access to the app. Here: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/nhs-test-and-trace-app-security-redux (the previous app described here https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/security-behind-nhs-contact-tracing-app)

P.S. I have a QR code generation library available free on GitHub. here.

New covid rules (England, July 4th)

There are new rules - at almost no notice without any parliamentary oversight, as is now usual!

They have gone for a complete rewrite this time.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020

Basically, gatherings up to 30 people now and more places allowed to be open subject to risk assessments and measures. All a bit wooly if you ask me.

But also special rules for Leicester
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020

The way they have defined the area is rather odd, if you ask me. It seems they have picked something, perhaps a distance, or drawn a line, or some such, and then used a tool to make a list of postcodes and addresses. It would seem to me to have been simpler to just cover whole postcode areas rather than have 24 pages listing postcodes and addresses.

The addresses include gems like this on page 34!

PUBLIC TELEPHONE 33M FROM 109 WELFORD ROAD 9M FROM UNNAMED ROAD ROUNDABOUT AT THE JUNCTION OF GUTHLAXTON WAY AND WELFORD ROAD WIGSTON LE18 3TE

I found it on street view.

So no gatherings of two or more people in that phone box!
That, to me, suggests this was really not thought about in any detail.

Linked households and musical chairs

I was not sure whether to post this as people seem to think it is just about finding loopholes in the law to work around it, which it is not. We should all be taking this seriously and considering our own circumstances, and of those with which we might interact, and trying to be as safe as possible.

This is more about showing how badly thought out, and how badly drafted, these laws are.

Laws being brought in on emergency powers with almost no notice and zero parliamentary scrutiny. There is no excuse for this. The stages of relaxing lock down could have been considered, with the relevant legislation, months ago and agreed by parliament with agreed levels when each stage would come in to law. That would have meant everyone impacted by the changes would know what to expect well in advance, and the police would know what laws were coming so they could police them. Importantly the objectives and wording of each stage could have had careful scrutiny to avoid the stupid errors that we have seen in version after version of these laws.

However, today's new legislation is here. I.e. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 as of 15th June 2020.

It includes a little gem on linked households, a fun new concept. Basically, this extends the idea of a household to allow two households to be linked. That then allows them to have indoor gatherings with members of both households and even allows sleep overs at either house, which is what some people have been eagerly await for obvious reasons.

This sounds simple enough at first glance - ignoring children, two households (where one is only one person) can be linked if all the adults agree. Once linked you stay linked unless the rules for allowing linking break. Once unlinked, that is it, you can't link to any other household, a sort of link-ban, forever! What is hard to understand?

Well, there are several layers of issue here :-

Which household to choose, and who is left out?

Even taking the rules entirely as intended this poses problems. My household is 5 adults, and we know, between us, several other single person households with which we may want to be linked. Which do we choose? Who do we piss off by not choosing. How do we all agree on which we choose (as required). When do we choose - as this is permanent, do we wait until we need to have a link because we want to have someone at one or other household? What if we choose too soon and want to change our mind?

Does this make for the new chat up line: "how would you like to link households with me?", or the new euphemism "those two are linked households"?

No changing your mind, or is there?

There is no changing your mind - the rules are clear - even causing the link to terminate does not then allow linking by either household with any other.

Well, we assume not - but could you get a link annulled? perhaps on the basis that is was not consummated, by which I mean there was never an indoor gathering with members of both households present, i.e. there was no reliance on the linked household for any activity to be legal. Surely that would be valid, and as not terminating the link, it would allow the households to pick others to now link with maybe? Nothing outlaws that, does it? It basically does no mention that possibility. When is the link created - when parties agree the link? or when parties rely on the link to be legal in what they are doing (sleep over?). Or is it when they are caught relying on the link to be legal in what they are doing?

No record of linked households - Schrödinger's link?

Of course the issue of annulling a link is not really important - if all members agree that they are no longer linked, then who is to say that they ever were? Only if everyone is prepared to say they were linked, or had that on some sort of record, it only takes one person to say "we never agreed to be a linked household" and you cannot really prove the households were linked. So if you did link households, and then decide to change your mind, what is basically to stop you?

Essentially, until you are caught out you do not have to say you are a linked household.

Blackmail?

This, of course, opens some issues. If two households are linked, and someone is caught, i.e. seen by nosy neighbours entering someone else's house, then they can say they were linked with them (assuming one or other of the households is a single person, and so allowed). But that only really works if all members of the household agree. If even one of them says it is not agreed, the link did not happen, and you are nicked (fined). So now there is an opportunity, if you are questioned over such activity, for it to be worth something to you for the people in the household to agree the households were linked. A chance for blackmail, at least to the value of the fine.

What is a household even?

Defining an household should not be hard, and was not that important before. Essentially it is pretty obvious, a group of people all living in the same house. But the new rules create a state related to households, the state of being linked, and that means it matters what a household is, and was, and how it may change, or be created or dissolved and if that state moves or persists. It is not quite so simple is it? Remember, that moving house has been allowed all along, but assumed that simply staying over night is not moving house one day and moving back the next, so it is presumed you have to move house for several days at least to have actually moved house.

To add to the fun, children are exclude from the counts in the households. Except that there is a magic grey area. The single household can have children that are 18 after 12th June, and still count as children. However the other household which has no limits on number of adults could find they have an extra adult for a child becoming 18 after 12th June, and that adult has to have agreed to the link for it to be valid. What if they now don't agree, or did not agree when they were a minor. Why have children defined at a date for one part of the rules and not another part?

Moving house

Moving house is perhaps the biggest issue with this, and the whole concept of a household.

Let's make a scenario in order to try and work this out. Again, ignoring children.

• Single household A is linked with two person household B
• Single household C is linked with three person household D
• There is an empty house E

So, some questions to consider and not all answered by the law. What is the answer I wonder?

Person from house B moves to house A. This is clearly that they have left one household and joined another. Household B is now the remaining person from household B. Household A is now the group of A and that person. The two households meet the requirements for linking still (one is single) and assuming they all agree, they stay linked. Good, something pretty clear and obvious.

Person from house D moves to house C. This is clearly that they have left one household and joined another. Household D is now the remaining people from household D. Household C is now the group of C and that person. Now the two households are no longer allowed to be linked as there is not a single person household, so the link is broken and both households are now link-banned. Note that this person could sleep over at household C, but somehow need to make sure that they don't move house to household C if they want to stay linked. Fine line?

Person from house D moves to house B. This is clearly that they have left one household and joined another. Household D is now the remaining people from household D. Household B is now the members of B and the person that moved. Both the A-B and C-D linked households remain valid as they each have one single person household. Is that true under this law?

Person from house A moves to house C. This is clearly that they have joined a new household, and household C is now both of them. This breaks the A-B link as A no longer has a single person (it has none, does it even exist any more), so A and B are link-banned. This breaks C-D link (as C is no longer a single person), so C and D are link-banned.

Person from house A moves to house D. This is clearly that they have joined a new household, and household D is now all four of them. This breaks the A-B link as A no longer has a single person (it has none, does it even exist any more), so A and B are link-banned.  This does not break the C-D link. However, now, as this person is part of the C-D linked household, a sleepover at household C is allowed as long as it is not moving house. Now, try explaining how this is different to the scenario above where this person moved to house C. They are in the same place, but the C-D link now remains. This is an anomaly.

Person from house A moves to empty house E. Is this moving from one household to another, and so the A-B link is broken? Or has household A moved, and the A-B link (now E-B) remains?

If we consider in the above that the A-B link is broken, is the now empty house A still a household, and still link-banned. If someone now moves in to household A, are they now link-banned, or could they link to another household? Does that impact then house price of house A?

If we consider the house itself to hold the household when empty, what happens if link A-B is broken. A and B are link-banned. What if person in house A moves to household D? Do they carry the link-ban with them and so break the C-D link, or are they just part of the linked household D now? What if they then move to empty house E? Have they created a new household, or is their original house A link-ban still attached to them? What if they move back to house A, are they link-banned?

Cannot police

Basically there is zero way the police could police this. At best they could come down on an obvious "house party" or group of people from several households, and take some action as an illegal indoor gathering. They almost certainly need to be in a case where we are talking more than two households to have any chance of it suddenly being a linked household they are looking at.

Laws that cannot possibly be policed are bad, and this is an example of bad in so many ways.

Mental health

I am no expert, and as I get older I start to understand some of the issues that can happen - but just touching the surface.

It is a strange subject in some ways - so many things in life we can try out and see for ourselves. I love that science and mathematics are things you can try and test and see and intuitively understand if you try. But mental health is not quite so easy.

You can't really experiment on others, or yourself, and see how it works. I wonder how people that do work with those with mental health issues cope themselves even. They may not be experimenting but they are experiencing the issues of others.

The lockdown, and isolation, we all face in the last few months has been unexpected, and is pretty much unprecedented for most people alive now. It is a change in the way we interact with other people, and that is new and different for most of us.

Interacting can be face to face, or via telephone, email, video call, irc, chat, etc. I am someone that does not interact a lot face to face - I spend my days in my "man cave". I do interact a lot by text means normally, but not a lot face to face. I am not a very social person, usually. Someone said I was asocial rather than anti-social.

So I expected that the degree of isolation would be no problem - I was not quite right on that. Just the little bit of social interaction almost every day (mainly cycling to Costa and having breakfast and a coffee) was enough, and now that is gone. Should that matter?

Video calling is a boon, it helps, but even that is more effort that it seems it should be, even just a few clicks on a portal. Going for a walk, even with no interaction with others, does help, but feels like hard work.

These are strange times, and I expect this is all something we can work to live with. I find some days I am fine, and some days I am not. I have my wife, and some of my family, here with me, but there are people that are really on their own. I wonder how they cope.

It is strange finding mental health is a thing I can observe and study in my self, but not an easy subject to study, and one that may mean drinking too much on occasion as well.

This must be a huge issue for those considering manned space missions in the future.

Be reasonable

Update: New rules 13th May change the examples that are reasonable.

This is a blog about a little bit off the way laws are drafted. I am not an expert on legal drafting, and not a lawyer - however, laws are meant to be understood - as a member of the public I should be able to work out if something I am about to do is legal or not, even if that means I need a bit of help to understand the way laws are written. I'd be delighted in any feedback from those that are experts.

I'm picking, topically, on section 6 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 as amended. In particular, it basically says, in 6(1) that you need a reasonable excuse to leave home.

So that gives us a test - is my excuse a reasonable excuse or not. If that is all it said, it would be somewhat open to interpretation, and my view could be very different to yours. This is an issue where one party is a policeman and disagrees on what is and is not reasonable.

Of course, I would hope, being public health legislation, not public order, that any excuse that does not pose a public health risk should be considered reasonable. It is shame there is not paragraph clarifying the basis of a reasonableness test. Surely taking your household for a drive to a secluded spot for a picnic should be reasonable, clearly, as not a health risk as you do not interact with anyone. Even more reasonable if you ensure well serviced car, enough fuel, and driving carefully. Sadly this is not so simple, and we know the police are quite clear on that not being reasonable, so we need clues. We need to know how to apply this reasonableness test.

6(2) of the regulations helps, it defines reasonable as including... and a list of things. The use of the word "including" here is very important as it means it is a non-exhaustive list. It means some thing may be reasonable but not on the list. Sadly it gives no real idea how to tell if things not listed are or are not reasonable. So, for example, I would consider feeding a horse reasonable, but that probably comes under 6(2)(h) as a legal obligation under animal welfare laws.

This is where a computer programmer and a lawyer would diverge somewhat. To a computer programmer the rules in 6(2) are simple tests - if you pass any then you are reasonable. If not then there is an implicit final "generally reasonable" test, but the wording of the tests in 6(2) would not have any bearing on that "generally reasonable" test.

However, the wording does matter. The items in 6(2) are not simply positive things. They do not say "this is reasonable" and "that is reasonable", no, they say "this is reasonable except in this case", and "that is reasonable, if another thing applies".

This is quite clever in a way as it uses examples to couch the boundaries of the test, to say what goes in and what goes out - where the line is drawn.

So, for example, 6(2)(ga) to visit a burial ground or garden of remembrance, to pay respects to a member of the person’s household, a family member or friend; says visiting a burial ground is reasonable, but only in some cases. It has caveats, and they matter. It is was just that visiting a burial ground was reasonable the clause would not go on to say member of the person’s household, a family member or friend at all, so this means that visiting someone you don't know is not in fact reasonable.

So even though 6(2) is a non exhaustive list, using "includes", every restriction or caveat in the clauses in 6(2) effectively define the edge - line beyond which something is not reasonable, for those things that are listed.

Looking at 6(2)(b) to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household; the caveat is either alone or with other members of their household matters, and so exercise with someone else is not reasonable. As I say, as a computer programmer it would be different - exercise with someone else would simply fail 6(2)(b) but a "generally reasonable" test would not consider why it failed 6(2)(b), or that 6(2) has a test relating to exercise in it with caveats. However in English, those caveats start to matter as we list "exercise" and they say where the line is drawn. Exercise itself is not something not listed, and so possibly also included, because 6(2)(b) does cover exercise.

Looking at 6(2)(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; seems to clearly relate to doing work (or volunteering, etc) but it has a caveat of not being possible to do it from where you are living. Again, the clause covers working, so you would not consider it reasonable to go out to work when you can do it at home - even if that is not a public health issue.

Of course, the use of "includes" does allow for something completely different to be reasonable and not be in the list. Ideally something that is obvious to all that it is clearly reasonable. But anything that is in the list with deliberate constraints clearly defines the boundary and implied directly what is beyond that boundary and hence not reasonable.

Sadly, 6(2)(f) also has the caveat "to travel", which directly implies that outside of that caveat, working away from home at all is not a reasonable excuse.

Sadly, on that last point, as 6(1) now needs an excuse to simply be outside, it suggests doing work that is not travelling for work, outside your home, is no longer reasonable.

Oddly even 6(2)(k) in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship; is a problem as such a minster can go to their place of worship, but then no longer has a reasonable excuse to be there, or even to travel back home!

Some clauses just muddy the water, like 6(2)(l) to move house where reasonably necessary; effectively defining reasonable excuse as a thing that you need to do because is reasonably necessary! That is not helpful...

P.S. Stay home!

Going to work?

Update: Fixed on 13th May

Drafting legislation is obviously a complex issue, and needs a lot of work.

As we have seen, the regulations for COVID-19 are badly drafted, with many things people consider "loopholes". The original legislation was, after all, done in a rush.

Thankfully the civil servants have has several weeks now to carefully draft some amendments to fix some of the issues, so these should be really good now, obviously.

Some issues:-

• Previously you could leave home for one reason but then did not have to have a reason for being "outside". I.e. you could leave for exercise and then decide to go and have a picnic. As long as not a gathering of more than 2 people not from the same household in a public place, that was legal, even if the police said it was not and fined people.
• Previously if you have a party at your home with lots of friends, it was clearly a gathering, but not in a public place, so you (at home) were not breaking the law. Any of your friends that left where they live with reasonable excuse and then decided to come to your party would also not be breaking the law. Even so, police would break up parties and fine people.
• Previously if you left home for exercise, went to the park, you could sit on the bench for a while, even have lunch. What mattered is why you left home.

The changes at 11am today address some of these, and are listed here.

They fixed interesting things like in paragraph (1)(b), for “over the age of 18” substitute “aged 18 or over”; and in sub-paragraph (i)(iii), for “Department of Work” substitute “Department for Work”.

But one of the changes is this :-

(4) In regulation 6—

(a)in paragraph (1), after “leave” insert “or be outside of”;

This means that it now reads :-

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

This covers a lot of previous loopholes. Now you no longer just need an excuse to leave where you live, but to be outside (yes, your garden is still counted as inside your home for this). So the picnic is not longer valid, and neither is the house party (not because a gathering, but because the people there have no reasonable excuse for being outside their own home). Sadly it may also mean the rest during a long walk is a problem. I am actually a tad surprised that "returning home" is not in itself a reasonable excuse.

However, what concerns me is that they did not update the actual list of reasonable excuses having now changed the context.

Notably the reasonable excuse: (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;

Now, previously, it was OK to leave home to "travel for the purposes of work" (if you could not do that work at home), and, having left home with reasonable excuse, you could, well, do the work!

Yes, the list is not exhaustive, but given how the police seem happy to fine people when they were covered by the list it is tricky doing anything not on the explicit list. Arguably the specificity of the use of the word "travelling" for work in the list highlights anything other than travelling as not being "reasonable". A simple fix would be to remove the "to travel" part, so "for purposes of work" (where you can't do it from home) would be covered, including any travelling.

But the excuses don't list actually "doing work", or "being at your office", or anything that is not actually "travelling". And this reasonable excuse has to cover not just leaving your home, but being outside your home.

So now it seems they have plugged the loophole allowing a picnic, but made supermarket workers illegal sat at their tills. Indeed, if you are an MP sat in parliament right now, which of the reasonable excuses do you have for not being at home?

Really? This is the competence level of our current parliament?

Losing all respect

I am just astounded by the way the UK police are behaving right now.

TL;DR: Massive over reaction and police state style action way above what the law provides and with no regard for public health, for weeks now. Then massive under action on a public gathering with no regard for public health last night. They seem to have no clue. How can any of us have any respect for them?

Update: it is worth saying that I don't assume this is all police, but with the power the police have over us we need to hold them to the highest standards. It is clear that a lot of the police do not understand the rules, or the simplest concern of this being public health legislation, as I have heard numerous reports from friends who have been stopped and questioned unnecessarily when doing nothing wrong, each occasion creating risk of spreading the virus.

In the last few days we have had :-

Police surrounding a journalist after telling some women she cannot sit down for a moment whilst exercising, and telling him that he is killing people, even they are "in his face" with no PPE. They really are trying to be the plague spreaders here, aren't they?

The other week journalist @MikeSegalov got hassled and shouted at by the police for filming an incident in a park. Here's the footage. Not a good look for the police – breaking social distancing rules by surrounding him and wrongly shouting at a journalist to go home. pic.twitter.com/BKXSXbE6Gm

— Great Editor (@simonchilds13) April 16, 2020

Also, we have new guidelines by NPCC and College of police on why you can leave your home - but the rules have not changed. The only difference is these guidelines are perhaps easier to read and are more widely publicised (here) - apparently several police twitter accounts saying they are unenforceable even though the rules HAVE NOT CHANGED! We can only assume they are cross that the rules are not what they would like them to be and only just realised, weeks after they came in to force. (it is a separate debate as to whether the rules are adequate or not, and not one for the police to decide).

And then you have this, a public gathering on Westminster bridge yesterday and the police don't appear to be dispersing the gathering or enforcing the rules but actually participating!

The scene from Westminster bridge #ClapForCarers pic.twitter.com/JpzM0YBjgH

— Damir Rafi (@d_rafi1) April 16, 2020

Ever crazier, the police themselves posted about this gathering as if it was a good thing!!!

Thank you to the real heroes.

Thank you London. #ClapForKeyWorkers #ClapForCarers

London is together. pic.twitter.com/ksqHZjkTxV

— Metropolitan Police | #StayHomeSaveLives (@metpoliceuk) April 16, 2020

I have sent a freedom of information requests (here and here), and we'll see what they say.

Update: as of 11am on 22nd April the law changed to cover "being outside" not just "leaving". Here.

NHS ID not good enough to prove "Essential travel"

Worrying times indeed - that police have reportedly stopped NHS staff (here) and would not accept their NHS ID card as good enough evidence for "essential travel".

There are people saying that it should be good enough to show "essential travel", and others saying that it is crazy the police don't think NHS staff are doing "essential work" or are "key workers". I agree that it is wrong, but these comments show people don't understand the rules at all (and clearly, neither do the police). There is no need to prove you are on "essential travel" as there is no law against "travel". Similarly there is no law saying only "essential work" can be done, or only "key workers" can work.

But first, again, please stay at home if you can - be sensible.

So let's look at the logic here a bit. There are a couple of key rules - one on public gatherings (not relevant) and one on leaving the place where you live.

Update: The college of police have released more guidance (here).

Update: as of 11am on 22nd April the law changed to cover "being outside" not just "leaving". Here.

No "stop and account" power.

The first problem is that the police (see this report) have no "stop and account" power anyway.

"The helpful National Police Chief’s Council and College of Policing Guidance makes clear that there is no power to “stop and account”. Therefore, the police should not be intercepting people who they do not suspect to be causing health risks by their behaviour in violation of Regulation 6 or 7."

They also say road checks on every vehicle are disproportionate.

So why were they stopping someone anyway? Note the "causing health risks" part - this is public health law, not public order law, so they don't just have to suspect you left where you live without reasonable excuse, they have to think you are causing a public health risk by doing so. It is hard to see how anyone in a car driving on a road is "causing a health risk" at all. Yes, they could be doing something stupid, and there are laws on public gatherings, but just driving in a card, especially if alone, clear is not in itself a public health risk.

Plague spreaders?

Obviously, the police should also not, themselves, be causing a health risk - yet stopping and questioning people does just that as they become "plague spreaders" as they are in contact with so many people, and are doing it deliberately! Stopping NHS staff is even worse as they too are high risk not just of having the virus (spreading to police) but also of spreading it to those vulnerable (in hospital).

Where are you going?

We don't know what was actually asked when they stopped this NHS worker. I would not be surprised if they asked where someone is going - accounts from friends who have been stopped suggest this is the case. I have heard reports of someone stopped when going to tend to their horse and having to make an hour long round trip back home to get proof that they have a horse and where it is stabled, and so on. This is crazy!

Actually the only relevant question to ask is "For what reason did you leave where you live?"

But even that is a bit of a useless question. Nothing you are doing now has to relate to why you left where you live. Whilst you don't even have to say why, you can say any of the reasons listed (here) and there is really no way a police officer, or anyone else, can really prove beyond reasonable doubt whether that was or was not your "reason" when you actually left where you live. It is hard to even justify simply suspecting someone of leaving for some other reason as they can leave for one reason and be doing something else now - so current actions do not have to relate to the "reason". Yes, the law is a tad daft if so unenforceable - but most people try follow the law which makes it a useful law even so.

Where do you work?

One presumes the NHS staff member said they were going to work, i.e. they left where they live as they need to travel for work for the NHS. So what is the next question, perhaps "where do you work?".

Actually the only relevant question to ask is "Could you do that work at home?"

But even that is a bit of a useless question. If you say "no", the police officer cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that is not the case, can he/she? Even if your work is done solely on a computer that does not mean you have a computer, or your computer is or can be set up to allow that work. Even if set up to work from home, if your Internet link breaks or computer breaks or any other reason, you may not be currently able to do that work from home.

Thankfully, with a lot of work from our ops team, my work has set up so that all but one person is working from home, and doing a great job, but that is not the case for many companies, and almost impossible to prove that someone can work from home.

Essential work?

Some people have suggested it is crazy that the police did not consider NHS work essential, but again, there is no question of what the work is - everyone is allowed to work, and allowed to leave where they live if they need to travel for work if they cannot do it from home.

A gardener, or florist, or bricklayer, can all work and can leave where they live to travel for work if they cannot do that work at home. What ID would police expect to see for such workers to somehow justify their "essential travel"?

Essential travel?

Even the news article talks of proving it was essential travel, and that NHS ID was not good enough to prove that. But again travel is not limited to "essential travel". It is not even limited to "travel for work" - just that one of the reasonable excuses for leaving home is that you need to travel for work. There are many other reasons to leave home that could involve travelling including to go some where to exercise, or to go shopping. But these are not actually the only reasons allowed for "travel" as travel itself is not in any way restricted or banned! Essential travel is not a "thing".

Proving innocence!

There is a big issue, in my view, with people somehow expected to prove their innocence, and even be able to do that on the spot or face a fine - or be turned back, or escorted home.

Why does it matter?

• Police should enforce just the law, and not "policy" - the fact that government guidelines go beyond the law and that police are trying to enforce "guidelines" and not just the law is bad - it is the very concept of a "police state", but importantly it undermines trust and respect in the police. We should trust and respect the police, especially at a time like this. But in return they need to actually follow the rules and the law.
• Stopping NHS workers getting to work is just plain stupid, not legal, and very much not in the interests of public health.
• Police can be spreading the virus far more than the people they are stopping and talking to. That undermines the whole public health objectives and means more people will die.

That said, obviously, it is sensible to only leave home if you have to, and only to travel where you have to, and wash your hands. But the police have no place demanding people justify their travel at all - it is all about the reason for leaving where you live, not where you are going or even why you are going somewhere, nor how far you are going.

But once again, please stay home and only go out if you really need - and wash you hands!

Rules

Before anyone has a go about looking for loopholes, please just stay at home. If you have to go out, keep away from people, try not to touch your face, wash your hands (take sanitiser with you even). Stay safe!

However, when the new rules actually came out (here), and I mean for England, as, confusingly, other UK countries are not quite the same, I did wonder how the police were supposed to enforce them at all.

For example, a gathering of more than 2 people is prohibited, unless from same household. How to you prove you are from the same household, or, more importantly in an "innocent until proven guilty culture" how do the police prove you are not? You don't have to carry ID.

But I assumed some sense. E.g. a couple with a child going for a walk are probably OK, but a group of 20 teenagers is probably not.

Sadly the police are not being sensible, even publishing drone footage of a couple walking way apart from anyone else, and suggesting somehow that was not allowed. Worrying times.

But then you get to some of the more complicated rules. In this case I am not so much pointing out loopholes, as highlighting some rather crazy drafting of the law.

Funerals

A gathering for a funeral is allowed. You can leave your home to attend a funeral, but only of a member of your household, a close family member, or a friend. However, you can only go to a fiend's funeral if there is not a member of the same household or close family attending. But it seems like if none of your household or close family attending the friends funeral rather than close family or same household as the friend, which is rather confusing. It looks like if two people in the same family or household know someone as a friend, only one of them can go to the funeral. This is almost the reverse of the gatherings rule where people have to be the same household - at a funeral they can't be the same household, if the deceased is a friend, but can if the decided is their family. Arrrg! How do you police that and why is that the rule? It makes no sense!

It would have been far simpler to say funerals max 25 people or something simple and enforceable, but no, they have created convoluted rules.

But wait, it is not that simple. The convoluted rules only relate to leaving your home. It is the valid excuse to leave if to attend a funeral. If you leave your home to, say, exercise, you can then go to a funeral (an allowed gathering).

So it seems the only safe way to go to a friend's funeral is to wear a jogging outfit.

I can only hope none of us have to attend many funerals though - so please stay home and stay safe.

Need

Of course, these convoluted rules are simply part of the list of things that are a reasonable excuse. You can leave home for any "reasonable excuse" even those not on the list, but you may have to convince a police officer of your reasonable excuse. Even the list has the caveat that you leave your home for a "need" to do something, and arguably nobody "needs" to go to a funeral.

Business as usual, or is it?

Obviously, to slow the spread of COVID-19 cases and reduce burden on NHS, we need people to stop interacting as much.

TLDR; governments have given five different messages about going to work, from yes you can, to only key workers, shutting down the economy almost entirely, with no clear message. It is causing confusion and will cost businesses and livelihoods.

The message from the government last night seemed clear...

Don't go out, but you can get food, medicine, and importantly you CAN GO TO WORK. Ideally, you work from home if you can, but all that was being shut down is the face to face shops and places where people gather and spread the virus a lot with other random people. Indeed, stopping all contact probably does not help as the spread just comes back as soon as you relax the lockdown - this is all about statistics - reduce contact enough to allow the NHS to cope.

It was, otherwise, for all those offices and factories and businesses that keep the economy going - business as usual (working from home if you can).

Now, assuming this is enough to slow the virus, that is great, well done UK government.

So, yes, please follow advice, stay at home, let's slow this spread enough for the NHS to still work.

My issue, however, is the horrible mixed messages from the government, which is really causing a lot of confusion.

First the message was, you can go to work, but try and work from home where possible.

Then, No10 twitter tweeted (image below) that you can go to work (if you're a key worker).

Now that is a massively different message. That is shutting down the whole UK economy in one go over night with no notice. That is HUGE!

They deleted the tweet, and changed so you can go to work (but work from home if possible) as per the speech. OK, good.

This was however a massive mis-direction and confusion by a tweet that was up for a while last night.

But it gets worse, a document about the lock down (here) says, in bold and underlined: "Non-essential businesses and premises must now shut!" We think this is meant to be a heading, and wording like "Non-essential businesses and premises that must now shut:-" or some such, but that is not what it says.

Again, confusing and mixed messages.

But now they are SMSing everyone with a link to gov.uk/coronavirus which says not to go outside except for "essential work", which is yet another unclear term, and again suggests a complete UK economic shutdown.

So what the hell is the message meant to be - is this business as usual apart from shops, or what?
Why the hell are the government not giving a CLEAR MESSAGE?

P.S. Obviously offices and factories have some duty of care, so things like people being able to keep apart and hand sanitisers and so on are an important step as well.

P.P.S. as per final image below, they have now changed the web site to say "work (where this absolutely cannot be done from home)". This is a total shambles!

P.P.P.S. the BBC have yet another, subtly different wording: Travelling to and from work, but only if it is "absolutely necessary", which is not clear either, is it necessary for you to still be paid, or is it "necessary work", i.e. key worker stuff?

P.P.P.P.S. as of this morning (25th) they have finally changed the PDF guidance document. That is three separate bits of government information that have changed now, having initially given misleading or wrong information.

Here are the messages:-