Paladin

Many would disagree. Guidance is not law, unless it is repeating what the law actually says. “What is the difference between legislation and guidance? To find out exactly what the rules are during the coronavirus pandemic, you need to look at both legislation and government guidance. Legislation sets out legal obligations and restrictions that are enforceable by law. If you do not abide by the legislation you are breaking the law. Guidance and advice is likely to be based on legislation (in which case it will be legally binding) and it might offer the best or most appropriate way to adhere to the law. The law is what you must do; the guidance might be a mixture of what you must do and what you should do.” (source: HMG ) “They [the police] have powers to enforce the law and maintain public order, but they are not empowered to enforce the government’s guidance where it is more demanding than the law.” (source: The Institute for Government )

No, there is no such power given under the covid regulations. Nor is there a requirement to give your name and address. If you were genuinely suspected of committing an offence and you refused to give your name and address, then an officer could, depending on the circumstances, arrest you, but he would have to have very good grounds for so doing. Simply refusing to give your details is not sufficient grounds, though.

Correction: It's section 16(6) of the 2009 Act, not the 1988 one.

I don’t think that is entirely accurate. In a normal year, unlike private owners who have to pay the full amount by 1 April, the hire companies are allowed to pay their tolls bill in four stages 10% in April, then 30% in May, June and July. In 2020, those stages were delayed and the final tranche was only payable on 30 November 2020. So although there might be a liability to pay the full toll once the vessel is put into hire, that liability is deferred at the discretion of the Authority. The exemption to the liability to pay a toll under certain circumstances has nothing to do with the Covid situation. It is enshrined in the 1988 Norfolk & Suffolk Broads Act, and applies equally to hire and private vessels.

You appear to have forgotten, or are ignoring, that the toll for a motor cruiser is already 26% higher than that of a motorised sailing boat of equivalent block area and 39% higher than an equivalent sailing cruiser. The last thing we need is another wedge driven between boaters.

It is also notable that the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is carrying out an investigation into the Gt. Yarmouth tragedy. It appears there is great concern within the Authority about the possibility of corporate manslaughter being raised, as was mentioned at the last Navigation Committee meeting. So the idea is to get the defence in first, as an MAIB Inspector has said that any remedial action the BA takes will be noted in the MAIB report. The BA is simply jumping before it's pushed.

But how many times do you pass this shed (or billet) in the course of a day, week or month? Just because the patrol vessel isn't being used when you pass by, it doesn't mean the ranger isn't on duty. Who do you think carries out bank clearance? Yes, rangers, and they normally use a work boat rather than a patrol launch. Sometimes, it's more efficient to carry out maintanance checks on mooring by road, rather than launch. There's no mystery here. If you look at the figures regularly publish, the hours spent on patrolling, conservation, admin. etc. are clearly shown.

You're right, you didn't need to explain that, but I referred only to the matter of the copyright, which was part of the reason you gave for removing the image.

Craig's images may be used, provided the Creative Commons Licence is adhered to. This permission is to be found at the foot of each page on his site: "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike unless otherwise noted."

The initials probably stand for B**** Lathe Company. Loads to choose from here http://www.lathes.co.uk/ but I haven't spotted that particular logo.

In which case, you could very well miss the genuine call, giving you an appointment to get the anti-covid vaccination.

If that statement is true, it calls into question the whole purpose of both committees.

Isn’t this just repeating BA spin? The English canal system is owned and managed by CaRT, who did stop routine maintenance and had to ensure the canals were safe before opening them again. But the Broads were never closed. The BA don’t maintain the river banks. Nor do they maintain the bridges. I haven’t noticed any tunnels here, either. There are hundreds of locks on the canals, which had to be checked. How many are there on the Broads? So exactly what did the BA do during the first lockdown which, if it hadn’t been done, would have rendered the Broads (as a whole) unsafe for navigation?

It is one of those situation in which it could be said, 'it all depends'. For someone living in a city, most facilities will be on their doorstep. So cycling/walking would be a viable form of transport. I live in rural Norfolk. My nearest shops are 3 miles away. The next town, in which I might be able to obtain goods not sold in that town, is a further 5 miles. So an 8 mile journey for provisions is, for me, nothing unusual. But walking/cycling to shop is not an option. Yesterday, I went past How Hill. The public car park was absolutely full. It is 2.3 miles for me to walk there, via public footpaths across fields, but my wife can't walk that far. It is 2.5.miles by road. We don't have any bikes, so that would mean using car, and, possibly, not being able to park. So I went by boat (4.4 miles). I don't think I broke the spirit of the guidance and I am absolutely confident that I didn't break the law. But I wouldn't expect anyone to motor such a distance that they couldn't get home in the same day.

I really have no idea. I presume the guidance, from whichever source it comes, is intended to make things clearer for those who can not or will not take the time to look at the legislation themselves. Unfortunately, as we have seen, it only goes to sow the seeds of confusion, seeds which grow rapidly. Most of the discussions I’ve read on social media are around what is or isn’t permitted under the guidance. Those who bring the legislation into the discussion are quickly dismissed or ridiculed. I wonder what would happen if a defendant offered a defence of ‘but I was only following the guidance from ...’ I suspect that might be a mitigation, if genuine, but it wouldn’t stand up as a defence.

That's a rather odd comment to make, IMO. I thought the legislation was designed to bring an end to this pandemic.

The duty on fuel used for heating is 10.70 pence per litre. The VAT is 5%.

No, that was a genuine question.

Thank you, but do you actually have a contribution to add to the discussion?

But you clearly haven't carefully read my post. I described those who blindly follow guidance, without any thought process of their own, as sheep. If you have given the matter carefully thought, having fully understood the regulations and guidance, then you obviously don't fall into that category. I haven't been attempting to change your mind on the subject. I've merely been countering what I viewed as incorrect assessment, with cogent argument. Isn't that what discussion is about?

You're not exactly wrong, but you're conflating a couple of issues. The devil is in the detail. If your boat is in a private marina or other private moorings, the difference between 1) simply going to your boat for maintenance and 2) taking it out for recreation is that with 1) you are not going to a "public outdoor place", which is a prerequisite for both exercise and recreation. With 2), you are going to a "public outdoor place", where you may take part in any exercise and/or recreation - which may include working on your boat (which is great fun, isn't it). It's not about 'unnecessary travel', which isn't mentioned in the regulations, but having a "reasonable excuse" for leaving your home.

I'm pleased you understood what I was trying to say. Although we disagree over this issue, I too am not putting anyone else in jeopardy by my use of my boat. My wife and I are both in the vulnerable category, not just through age, and we will not take unnecessary risks. It is more dangerous going shopping than using our boat - in our judgement, anyway (other judgements are available).

No, I didn't. I was trying to make the point (lost on you) that there are those who blindly follow the guidance (which changes with the wind) without making any judgement themselves, and there are those, like rightsaidfred and me, who carefully read and understand the law, consider the guidance and come to a reasoned decision. If everyone came to the same decision regarding law, there'd be no need for lawyers.

Perhaps it's because we're not all sheep, prepared to be led by donkeys. You've obviously made an assessment of the regulations and the guidance, and have come to your own decision. Just because others don't share your conclusions doesn't mean that their points of view are invalid, or that they don't behave in a safe and considerate manner.

Defra hasn't said 'No' though, have they. They're saying 'comply with the law'. No problem for boaters there, then.