.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Paladin
-
Posts
1,169 -
Joined
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Paladin
-
-
59 minutes ago, grendel said:
meanwhile, I spotted this article from the manchester evening news (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/car-insurance-could-invalid-you-19243516?fbclid=IwAR3JeeNwtBCBtqXBdYYkGRbRrNG1SHu6tZukMVzm-ctC7v60K_RAXD_pTMY) that says your car insurance may be invalid if you are travelling for a non essential purpose and quote
interestingly no mention is made of 'to exercise' as essential travel.
so just be aware that insurance companies may use any travel not deemed essential (in their eyes) to avoid paying out should you have an accident.
I suppose another reason to stay at home and not go anywhere then, and yet another person to explain why your journey was essential to (and we all know how good insurance companies are at wriggling out of paying).
this would also be a good reason why you might want to go shopping by boat rather than taking the car! provided of course that your boat is ready to hand.
Of course marine insurance might take a similar stance, so its probably also worth contacting your insurer and checking you are covered if you want to use your boat during lockdown.
Is the Manchester Evening News in the Archant Group? They have similarly low reporting standards. They have taken a report from another newspaper and incorrectly copied it.
Let me repeat, for the umpteenth time, leaving home for exercise IS permitted and ‘non-essential travel’ is not mentioned in the regulations.
I really don’t understand the push to pump out fake news on this and other platforms.
-
1
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, grendel said:
well all of the radio adverts I hear are saying you must stay at home, then list the few exceptions where you can go out, what i am hearing here is people listing the exact word of the law...
What is left for us if we don't abide by the law, which includes permissions as well as restrictions. If you haven't read beyond "No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living..." then I don't really know what to say.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:
Hi all,
I have been on annual leave for a few days, returning today. Unfortunately I'm not able to respond to messages/posts on here whilst I'm not at work.
I can see there has been a lot of conflicting information between different organisations and I am sure we will be issuing an update shortly.
I will have a quick skim of this thread and try to answer any questions.
What I do know is that the information posted on this webpage https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-phased-return-of-sport-and-recreation/guidance-for-the-public-on-the-phased-return-of-outdoor-sport-and-recreation by a poster on page two is outdated/superseded. I am not sure why it is still on the Government website.
Best,
Tom
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
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Vaughan said:
So a straight question please :
From what I am reading here it seems that my daughter can travel from home at Potter Heigham to Stalham where our boat is moored and where the boatyard is still open for business. It also seems that if we were a national park, she could go out for the day in it. But all of a sudden, the Broads is not a national park!
Have I got that right?
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.
3 hours ago, grendel said:Paladin, you are totally avoiding getting the point of lockdown, it shouldnt be a case of travelling no matter the distance, its that unless there is an absolutely essential reason, we should not be doing it, in my book visiting a boat to go on a jolly isnt an absolute essential, and they have already said winterisation and maintenance are not considered essential, so how is a day trip on the boat more essential than that.
You can live within the new regulations, but you would still have to persuade a police officer that your trip to the boat (for non maintenance or winterisation) was more essential than those two reasons.
its not a case of finding legal loopholes to allow you to do things - its about restricting your travel to absolute essentials to prevent the spread of the virus, its about doing the RIGHT thing to protect everyone.
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.
30 minutes ago, grendel said:these are just excuses why you should be allowed to carry on and do what you want to do, all I am saying is that people should avoid trying to find an excuse to do what they want, and just knuckle down and follow the intent of the laws.
We are talking elsewhere of the soldiers that saw it as their duty to go to war, well it is our duty in this new war against the pandemic to follow the intent of the rules and stay at home as much as is practicably possible to slow the spread. to ease the burden on the NHS and to try and beat this thing, we wont beat it by ignoring the intent of the rules.
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.
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, grendel said:
I know the legislation as worded doesnt restrict the distance you can travel, but the whole point of this lockdown is to restrict the possibilities for the virus to transfer between hosts and between areas.
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.-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, CambridgeCabby said:
Current information from the BA is that they have requested clear information from U.K. gov on this as there are conflicting messages from various departments .
What ever the result of that is , the other factor is the restriction in unnecessary travel especially to other areas , so to those of us that live more than a few miles from our boats the information is clear
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.
-
4
-
-
51 minutes ago, grendel said:
all of which boils down to, does the policeman that has stopped you believe your journey is necessary?
You can argue the semantics of it all day, but at the end its down to the policemans interpretation of what is construed necessary, and that may not coincide with your interpretation.
Necessary? The regulations don’t require a journey to be necessary. That is not a matter of semantics, but a matter of law.
-
4 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:
How about neither, to my knowledge neither necessary or unnecessary are defined by length of time or distance and I would have thought the requirement would be to show that a journey was necessary.
Fred
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.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:
Hello Paladin,
Thank you for the update yes the maximum speed limit is 10 mph but the three main areas such as Lakeside, Bowness etc the speed limit is 6 mph.
Regards
Alan
Marshman asked for the situation regarding Windermere, so I confined my answer to that lake.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:
MM, it would be better if the information was consistent North and South, If the guidance changes to bring The Lakes in line with BA and the EA, I am sure some will still kick against it.
No doubt it will all be sorted out in the next 27 dayd
Surely it would be better if the guidance changes to be consistent with the regulations?
4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:A real national park says 'come boating'.
A sham national park says 'don't come boating'.
Someone has boobed, but who?
How many guesses do we get?
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:
The instruction on no unnecessary travel is the flaw in your plan.
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.
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, marshman said:
Can anyone confirm the current situation on Windermere? Not that I want to go but if you can use your private motorboat as a form of exercise, one might question the BA's original position? The trouble is that it is easy to be led astray by old posts which may have been superseded by events. However the up to date position seems to indicate you can - please prove me wrong !!!!
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.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, grendel said:
Paladin, its part of the online harms bill, but has been related to the coronavirus act (and I have to admit I have not read it all), but it is among the areas we research to ensure the forum complies with the latest and upcoming legislation that might affect the forum and social media in general. I just receive the reports from our experts and do my best to ensure we stick within the guidelines. (and you lot all thought us moderators had an easy life).
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).
-
4
-
-
50 minutes ago, grendel said:
sadly under the publication of misinformation clause of the new coronavirus 2020 act they are passing this speculation could lead to fines or imprisonment (which is one of the reasons we ask people not to pass on unsubstantiated speculation) its best to check here -https://sharechecklist.gov.uk/ before posting speculative items that might lead you into trouble.
Genuine question - to which section of the Coronavirus Act 2020 are you referring, please?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CambridgeCabby said:
Trouble is payment ,in full , has already been sent for full toll , if I also purchase a short term toll I won’t be able to claim it back off next years toll only this years so it will be over and above what I have paid for this year .
dont object to paying my toll but I will be b*****ed if I’m paying them extra
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.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:
We have now waited for three weeks for Yare House to confirm receipt and issue toll for our recent tender purchase , we had hoped to be able to use it last week , understand totally that Covid-19 measures prevent a visit in person to toll it but why they couldn’t permit me to re toll an existing previously tolled (number given to them) craft is ridiculous (albeit previously tolled by someone else), they have my details on record under Cerise Lady’s toll details .
Im sure that if we had used her the ever present rangers would have been on us and fined us , if they are able to issue short visit tolls to hirers on the spot as we saw them doing so to a hirer who also had an inflatable with outboard near Wayford then why the hell are they unable to issue one either online or by phone especially as they charge a full years toll so we are in effect paying for the weeks they are denying us its use .
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.
-
3 hours ago, Paladin said:
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?
1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:I have a nagging doubt about the probability of them having been posted in error. I actually think that the BA's handling of the Covid 19 financial issues has, so far, been good and that the 'leaked' report reads quite well, in their favour. It's absolute hell being a cynic!
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.
-
On 02/09/2020 at 11:55, marshman said:
With the greatest of respect I just think you are wrong to believe it was "withheld"!!!
22 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:Then why, with corresponding respect, was it headed "Not for publication by virtue of paragraphs 3 of part 1 of schedule 12a to the Local Government Act 1972 "?
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?
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, floydraser said:
Can anyone see the rules anywhere?
Section 16 of the Broads Authority Act 2009 refers.
-
1
-
-
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!
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, TheQ said:
Most of the speed cameras although connected up have never been commissioned to be used.
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?
-
2
-
-
37 minutes ago, vanessan said:
Yes, I was actually aware of the reason for the ‘afterthought’ as I chose to call it, mainly because that’s exactly what it looks like with the clarification either tagged along the bottom or taped across the top. Incidentally I haven’t come across anything on the BA website to the effect that the instruction was only intended for hirers, other than a leaflet about double mooring being produced for hirers. Is there guidance elsewhere Paladin?
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.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, vanessan said:
Small print at the bottom of the sign reads ‘please seek agreement with those on board the other boat before mooring alongside’. Trouble is nobody reads that far down! (I believe that phrase was added as an afterthought.)
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:
Perhaps Paladin also needs to appreciate that it's not the private boats that are used six or seven times a year (or even 15) that make the local economy tick. It's the hire boat industry where boats are crammed with holidaymakers looking to get away from it all week in, week out.
Not sure how the BA is biting any hands.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.
-
3
-
Opinions Please. Wifi Gadget.
in Technical Questions and Answers
Posted
Not that I know much about it, but it seems that some phones have that facility built in and some don't. Perhaps your previous phone simply didn't provide that facility.