Paladin

Tom, I realise you're trying to be helpful, but why is outdated guidance still displayed on the Broad Authority's web site? Just one example: "You should avoid travelling in or out of your local area, and you should look to reduce the number of journeys you make." This is said to be "from Government guidance". No, that no longer appears in Government guidance, which has been updated to "If you live in England, you must stay at home and avoid travel in the UK or overseas, unless for work, education or other legally permitted reasons. If you need to travel you should look to reduce the number of journeys if possible." https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november#travel

No, it's got nothing to do with national park status. The law says you can leave your home to go for exercise and/or recreation. There is no specified time or distance limit. The mode of transport isn't mentioned, either. So she could use her boat to go to somewhere that she wishes to take exercise. Also, private boating, in all its forms, has been said to be recreation, so exercise doesn't have to be the purpose of the journey. These aren't legal loopholes, which implies an attempt to evade the intent of the law. These are legally allowed exemptions from the law, specifically put into the law. Clear for all to read and understand. I refer to my previous answer. These aren't excuses. They are what the law specifically allows. I have no intention of putting myself or anyone else at risk. I am fully aware of the intent of the regulations, and abide by them. I also take note of guidance, such as hand washing, social distancing etc. But I will not be told I cannot do something when the law doesn't forbid that behaviour. In my opinion, those who give out false information and misrepresent, either intentionally or in error, what is and isn't permitted under the regulations, bring the regulations into disrupute. I will have no part of that.

Wrong again. The previous Tier system of restriction was the one designed to reduce the spread between areas, with travel between Tier areas largely prohibited. The current legislation repealed those previous regulations and removed any restriction on geographical travel in England, subject to the reason for journey being within the NEW regulations. The aim of the new regulations isn’t to stop people travelling, it’s to reduce the number of purposes for which anyone can leave their homes. If it is for a permissible reason, any length of journey, to and from any part of England, is allowed.

The prohibition on travelling to other areas was repealed with the passing of the current regulations. These present regulations contain no restrictions on the distance that may be travelled to fulfil any of the activities allowed under the exemptions. 5 miles or 50 miles, it doesn't matter, providing the purpose of the travel is a permitted one. The regulations are very loosely written in many respects. A simple example: I live 3 miles from my surgery, from which I collect medication each month (a permitted exception under the regs). I can drive my car there and back, or I could drive a mile to my boat, drive my boat for three hours to Womack Staithe, walk 10 minutes to the surgery, then back to my boat for the drive home. I'm not saying that is what I would do, but there is nothing in the regulations to say I can't. And I wouldn't be breaking any social distancing advice, either.

Necessary? The regulations don’t require a journey to be necessary. That is not a matter of semantics, but a matter of law.

There is no requirement in the regulations for any journey to be 'necessary'. Nor has any time or distance been set as a maximum. As I said in an earlier post, HMG positively encourage people to travel. The baseline is that: "No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse." There then follows a list of circumstances which are accepted as being reasonable excuses. There may be other circumstances, not listed, that a Court would accept as being reasonable excuses, but which the architects of the legislation hadn't considered. I very much doubt that winterisation of boats entered their thoughts, but a Court might think it a reasonable excuse.

Marshman asked for the situation regarding Windermere, so I confined my answer to that lake.

Surely it would be better if the guidance changes to be consistent with the regulations? How many guesses do we get?

From the current Cabinet Office Guidance (with my emboldment): If you live in England, you must stay at home and avoid travel in the UK or overseas, unless for work, education or other legally permitted reasons. If you need to travel you should look to reduce the number of journeys if possible. However you can and should still travel for a number of reasons, including: travelling to work where you cannot work from home travelling to education and for caring responsibilities to visit those in your support bubble - or your childcare bubble for childcare hospital, GP and other medical appointments or visits where you have had an accident or are concerned about your health to buy goods or services from premises that are open, including essential retail to spend time or exercise outdoors - this should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space) attending the care and exercise of a pet, or veterinary services. So HMG is actually encouraging us to get out and about for exercise and/or recreation and haven't put any limit on distance or time. Not trying to find loopholes, is it. Clearly, mental health is being regarded more seriously, this time round.

Copied from the Lake District National Park web site a few moments ago: "Guide to activities allowed in the main Lake District lakes Windermere 🏊🏼‍♀️ Swimming: Yes 🛶 Canoes, kayaks and paddleboards: Yes 🚣🏻‍♀️ Rowing boats: Yes ⛵️ Sailing boats: Yes, boats must be registered 🛥 Powered craft: Yes, boats must be registered and there is a 10 mph speed limit" Boating may be considered as a recreational activity as well as exercise.

Thank you, grendel. Now knowing where to start, I have looked at the White Paper which was published earlier this year. The On-Line Harms Bill will not be enacted until 2023/24 at the earliest, so it seems you were rather premature in your assertion that members are at risk at the moment. I agree that misinformation should not be spread about, but I don't think genuine speculation falls in that category. This is, after all, a discussion forum and one of the points in the White Paper is that there should be freedom of expression. Expressing an opinion that the lock-down could extend beyond 2 December (which hasn't been discounted by HMG) is very different from, for example, suggesting that Covid-19 could be treated by injecting disinfectant (attr: Donald J Trump).

Genuine question - to which section of the Coronavirus Act 2020 are you referring, please?

It seems that: 1. you have completed and submitted the correct application for registration, together with the correct amount for the annual toll, and the delay is with the tolls office, or 2. the paperwork and or the amount of payment was wrong and the tolls office can't register your tender. In either case, I suggest you ring the tolls office to sort it out.

Did you, and the previous owner, follow the correct procedure? Had the previous toll expired? Change of ownership - The seller/transferor must within 28 days of date of sale/transfer notify the Broads Authority of the sale/transfer by completing a Transfer of Ownership form. Until this is done the vessel may remain registered in the same ownership and the former owner may remain responsible for payment of tolls and compliance with the byelaws. The seller/Transferor should pass the registration certificate to the Purchaser/Transferee.The Purchaser/Transferee should with 28 days apply to the Broads Authority for a new registration certificate and should submit the old registration certificate for cancellation. If the previous toll had expired, it seems you have 28 days grace. But if you want to use the tender anyway, you can either buy a short visit toll (available from any number of outlets https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/boating/owning-a-boat/tolls/short-visit-toll/short-visit-outlets ) or get one from the first ranger that stops you. The cost of the SVT is deductible from the cost of the annual toll.

Leaked or not, the live video feed of the meeting was turned off, so that the committee could receive the exempt minutes. It seems that no-one realised they had already been published on the BA's web site, for all the world to see.

The minute in question is the minute of that part of the NavCom meeting of 11 June 2020, from which members of the public were excluded, i.e. exempt minutes under the LGA 1972. That they have been published with the regular minutes of that meeting seems to me to have been an error, as the agenda for today's meeting reads: 15. Exclusion of the public The Authority is asked to consider exclusion of the public from the meeting under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 for the consideration of the item below on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by Paragraphs 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act as amended, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public benefit in disclosing the information. 16. To receive the Exempt Minutes from the meeting held on 11 June 2020 (Pages 86-88) It will be interesting to see how that is dealt with at today's meeting. Will the public be excluded from the meeting so that the meeting can receive the exempt minutes, which have already been publicly published?

Section 16 of the Broads Authority Act 2009 refers.

It appears that a series of average speed cameras need not be linked sequentially, but, for example, No.2 might be linked with No.4. As, in all the stats I have found regarding the A149, only the Potter Heigham camera is mentioned, that first one may be the ‘master’ camera, through which all the data is collected. That is just a theory, but I’m not prepared to put it to the test. As far as knowing anyone ticketed on that stretch, I know two drivers who were caught out for exceeding the limit for their vehicles, limits which were vehicle related and below the 60 mph road limit. Fiendishly clever, these modern cameras!

Does this information come from an official source, in writing. I am aware of drivers who have received FPNs. Anyone care to carry out a practical test?

You won't find it because it has been removed from the BA's web site. However, this is what Trudi Wakelin, Director of Operations , wrote, back in 2012: "Any vessel who is not prepared to allow double alongside moorings should make alternative arrangements, rather than mooring at one of the sites where it is permitted. It is for individual boat owners to make appropriate insurance arrangements, and use their boat accordingly. We are advised that a comprehensive policy will cover this issue, but you should satisfy yourself of the position with your own insurer. Our policy is clear that any vessel moored to one of the trial 24hr moorings must allow another appropriate vessel to moor alongside, and the guidance that we have produced makes that clear. If you are not prepared to allow any vessel to moor against you then you should not be moored at this location... " After the U-turn, she explained that the cost of providing new signs was too high, so vinyl strips with the revised wording (to include the bit about getting permission) would be used.

No, it wasn't an afterthought. It was as a result of something of a revolution among private owners and representations from the NSBA. The BA originally issued a diktat (about 6 or 7 years ago) that double mooring would be allowed at a certain number of their 24hr moorings and that anyone not wishing to permit such double mooring should leave and find somewhere else to moor. This went down like a lead balloon, with issues such as insurance cover, liability for injury/damage, comparative sizes of boat, being raised. The BA performed a U-turn, saying that the instruction was only intended for hirers and that is how it now appears on their website.

I said as much in the opening of my post - "A healthy hire boat industry is essential for the local economy to survive..." I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear. But the vast majority of the businesses (excluding those related to boating) are not within the BA's executive area and rely on the local population for their custom and income, particularly outside the six week 'season'. When I look at the BA's obsequious fawning over the hire industry and compare that to their dismissive and arrogant attitude towards private owners (who provide 2/3rds of their tolls income), I'm rather surprised that anyone can't see that hand being bitten.

A healthy hire boat industry is essential for the local economy to survive, but that does not come within the remit of the Broads Authority in either of the Broads Acts. The promotion of tourism has its own organisations to perform that function. Perhaps the Authority should remember it gets double the income from private owners that it gets from the hire companies. It's never wise to bite the hand that feeds.

But the 2 metre rule hasn't been removed. What the Prime Minister actually said in his speech to the Commons today was (and I have emphasised the first and last sentences): "Where it is possible to keep 2 metres apart people should. But where it is not, we will advise people to keep a social distance of ‘one metre plus’, meaning they should remain one metre apart, while taking mitigations to reduce the risk of transmission. We are today publishing guidance on how businesses can reduce the risk by taking certain steps to protect workers and customers. These include, for instance, avoiding face-to-face seating by changing office layouts, reducing the number of people in enclosed spaces, improving ventilation, using protective screens and face coverings, closing non-essential social spaces, providing hand sanitiser and changing shift patterns so that staff work in set teams. And of course, we already mandate face coverings on public transport. Whilst the experts cannot give a precise assessment of how much the risk is reduced, they judge these mitigations would make “1 metre plus” broadly equivalent to the risk at 2 metres if those mitigations are fully implemented."

Yet he's still a member on here, apparently.