Doesn't seem right somehow.

There are so many inconsistencies about what we can and can't do, where we can go, and can't go. The rules are changing and we have to try and keep up with it all so we don't fall foul of the law. So we do the best for ourselves, and the best for other people. It seems there are differences  in policing depending where you live.

Take a look at this article in The Western Journal, scroll down and watch the video. See how the police look like they have come over from Russia, body armour, puffed up chests full of intimidating electronic gadgets, trousers tucked into boots, look at their clothing. Look at their aggression, look at their anger when confronted by someone who is trying to have a conversation with them. See how they don't practice social distancing as they bear down on the journalist trying to do his job. This is really frightening stuff. I would be crying if anyone spoke to me like that.

Now look at this picture of clapping last night on Westminster Bridge, still taken from a video, it's out there if you want to look for it.

No social distancing there, the police are actually joining in with it. Police vehicles parked all along the roadside, blue lights flashing. looks like a party atmosphere to me. So why aren't they breaking up this crowd and telling them to go home. Different rules for different situations. I can't see this ending well.
Toodle pip.  ilona

PS. I have just found this. Document from the National Police Chiefs Council.
Study it hard, you might be able to enlarge the text, or squint to see it.
There are three columns. Likely to be reasonable, Not likely to be reasonable, and Comments. It covers necessities, exercise, work, and other reasons.

Things which might will affect me.

LIKELY TO BE REASONABLE.
Including: going for a run or cycle or practicing yoga. Walking in the countryside or in cities. Attending an allotment.
Exercise can come in many forms, including walks. Exercise must involve some movement, but it is acceptable for a person to stop for a break in exercise. However, a very short period of ‘exercise’ to excuse a long period of inactivity may mean that the person is not engaged in ‘exercise’ but in fact something else. NOPE, CAN'T DRIVE FOR FOUR HOURS THEN EXERCISE FOR ONE HOUR THEN DRIVE FOUR HOURS BACK.
It is lawful to drive for exercise.
Driving to countryside and walking (where far more time is spent walking than driving). YEP.

NOT LIKELY TO BE REASONABLE.
Driving for a prolonged period with only brief exercise.

Stopping to rest or to eat lunch while on a long walk. YES YOU CAN DO THAT.
A short walk to a park bench, when the person remains seated for a much longer period. NOPE> NOT EXERCISE.
Exercising more than once per day - the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home.

Takes a bit of working out, sorry it's a bit mixed up, that's copy and pasting for you. Refer to the original document.