When you get to England, your travel across England or England's airspace would not be allowed if it was for leisure purposes. So yes you can travel to Manchester or Newcastle, but for education or work related travel, and a few other exceptions.

So as I'm reading it - and correct me if I'm wrong - Mr. Brown living in Oxford can't travel to Heathrow and catch a plane to, say, Madeira for a bit of holidays but Mr Da Souza from Madeira can catch a plane and come to Heathrow and, if I'm not mistaken, go about his business straight away as there's no 14-day quarantine. Isn't it a bit counterintuitive? I thought the idea - however questionable - was to stop infection from coming in.

The purpose of those two trips differs tho. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I am interested in the enforcement of this legislation. If a Border Force agent asks someone in an airport for the purpose of their travel I think it is perfectly reasonable not to answer. I have skim read the legislation on my phone and will read it properly tonight but is there a power for a BF agent/cop to refuse boarding to a passenger?

Should a police officer or BF agent ask a passenger the reason for them being outside their home address, the person is within their rights to not answer the question. The officer would require suspicion of an offence to arrest them and as far as I can see there is no power of search of property to find the reason. I cannot see the officer having grounds to arrest. I have been a police sergeant for 16 years (albeit I have not worked at the airport so airport specific legislation is not my speciality) and I would not authorise the detention of a person at a police station if an officer brought a person before me in such circumstances. This seems to be a summary only non recordable offence. Whilst I would not expect the officer to have obtained all evidence to prove the offence at the roadside/airport terminal, I would not be satisfied of a need to detain the individual to obtain evidence by questioning unless there was an admission under caution or some other evidence found that the person was outside of their home address for an unlawful purpose.

I understand the spirit of the legislation is to keep people at home, but it seems almost impossible to further a prosecution without an admission. I would not usually advise anyone to make no comment to the police, but this does seem a circumstance where speaking to the officer regarding the circumstances of your journey would be unwise.

I think you need to consider other legislation. Not to answer question by police or BF in an airport will make sure you end up being detained. Also as you are aware based on the current caution, conclusion can be drawn from your failure to answer.

if you really are travelling in breach of the regulations, keeping silent and refusing to answer questions will at best not make anything better, and at worst add to your problems.

edit: you will also see that someone can be directed to return to the place where they are living if they are considered to be in contravention of the requirement to stay home unless they have a reasonable excuse. Failure to comply with the instruction or obstruction can lead to a fixed penalty notice. Just because you don’t answer doesn’t mean the officer can’t draw conclusions or reach a consideration that you are in breach.

And just to add an anecdote, the veracity of which I can't double-check, a lady well into her 70s arrived into the UK a few days ago, from Ibiza, claiming she was exempt due to being a "marine biologist". BF accompanied her down to baggage reclaim, where her copious beachware outfits and lack of work material was duly noted, before being handed over to the Met Police. She isn't being processed under the Fixed Penalty Notice scheme, but under under the general legislation relating to making a false statement / misrepresentation.

I suspect that was somewhat exceptional, and I've no doubt that you can get away with it. A bit like speeding, perhaps, but getting caught is rarely a pleasant experience.

QUOTE want2fly4less
Two Questions pop-up for me, which might be a cost-effective way to leave the UK:

-Can your linked household be in another country than in the UK? This would then provide a reasonable excuse.
- Based on the wording you are allowed to collect food and drink from a business. Must this business be in the UK or can I just order a fantastic Pizza for collection from my favorite Pizza Place in Italy for collection? QUOTE

Your second one is frivolous, as you no doubt intended. But I think the first can definitely be reasonable. I have a ticket to the U.S. in late November and that is going to be my reasonable excuse for leaving the house.

Can someone explain the definition of local area as to how relates to not traveling out of your local area. Out of town? Out of the county? Distance limited? Something else?

Would someone from Bedfordshire (not Luton) be able to pick me up from Heathrow during the lockdown? I live in the States and the purpose of my visit would be to repatriate my late wife’s remains and finally lay her to rest. I believe that funerals/memorials are a valid reason for travel. I’m fully aware that I need to self isolate for 14 days upon my arrival. I would prefer not to use public transport to get to the household where I plan to isolate (and then form a bubble as I will be in the country for about 7 weeks) so I was curious if someone from that household would be allowed to travel to bring me back from the airport?

My second one was tongue in cheek since it is just taking the wording of the SI literally into account, but not the intention...

But I'm sure English lawyers know more about interpreting English law than me...

I assume this is in the guidance? there is no mention of local areas in the law.

in terms of someone picking you up at LHR it doesn’t neatly fit in the specific exemptions listed, but it arguably the purpose fits within the broader test of being a reasonable excuse.

I think the airport pick-up can be regarded as a reasonable excuse, so long as the person being picked up has a reasonable excuse for being out and about. The person doing the pick-up has an excuse in that it is safer to avoid public transport. It may not be explicit in the regulations but the list of excuses in the regulations is not exhaustive.

For example in the first lock-in I took my son to Heathrow. He is a seafarer and was going to join his ship in Spain having taken unpaid leave for the first part of the lock-in.

I did notice this in the SI. But this would have a bigger implication than just Scottish connecting flights at LHR. So a flight from Amsterdam to Toronto full of possible tourists would be aiding people in breaking the law because it flies over English airspace on the way?

Where does that leave transit pax? Say someone from Sweden (no self isolation requirement ATM) flies to STN and has onward flight to Canaries same day from LTN? Or has to overnight in STN?
Coming back from Canaries to Sweden via London seems to be OK, as they are returning home, but arriving from Sweden and flying onward to holiday destination they would be breaking the law?

Off topic, but it's not. We have recorded vastly more infections from people in separate households sharing cars than using public transport. But your logic relating to the reasonable excuse I certainly agree with.

I suspect that is under reasonable excuse, but a reality check may also be worthwhile.