Paladin

Why should submitting some information for balancing the discussion be indicative of my drinking preference? I fail to see the logic.

Typical Giarduan fodder. On a more positive note: "Farmers supported through the pilot managed to increase their coffee yield by around 100% and to double their income as seen in the below table." (source)

I have tried to stay out of this discussion, but I must confess I really don't understand what you are saying, MM. How can the content of the link be attributed to Tempest? If you look around the Topple the Racists site you'll find that it is closely associated with the Stop Trump organisation - look at the list of signatories to the letter they wrote - hard-left, Corbynists and Marxists, in the most part. Remind me of the Left's record on racism under Mr Corbyn. Before the mods jump in, I'm not trying to politicise the discussion, just trying to point out that there are many 'protesters' who are motivated more by their hard-left politics than by any sense of injustice to minority groups.

Sorry to spoil your fun but: "Fill in this form with the details of your item to add it to our map. Submissions will be moderated by the organisers." Moderated or censored? You decide.

Copyright material should always be attributed. The original article can be found here https://zoella.co.uk/2020/06/01/black-lives-matter-resources/

What was the source of this anti-Churchill rhetoric, please? It doesn’t take much research to see just how biased it is. He was certainly no angel and, perhaps, not a very nice person, but simply to repeat such ... words fail me ...does no-one any favours.

That article makes it clear that the enquiry found such behaviour to be totally unacceptable and the Met Police "stated the methodology had constituted abuse and a "gross violation" with severely harmful effects". The units have been disbanded. A great deal of police work is intelligence lead, with covert officers involved. That is entirely appropriate, subject to suitable restraints and supervision, which has, in some case, been absent.

I thought this was about racism. The demonstrations in the UK were prompted by an event in the USA, so I don't think I'm changing the subject by mentioning racist behaviour in other countries, behaviour that involved the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in ethnic minorities. I'm sorry if that doesn't chime with your agenda, but it can't and shouldn't be so lightly dismissed.

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument." (Wiki) Sorry, but I don't think my post fits that definition, but you did manage to avoid responding to the evidence I provided.

I'd love to see you try to unpick that statement, batrabill. But before you do, you might like to read this article and that's before we discuss the happenings in East Timor, Myanmar, Iraq ... shall I go on?

For the sake of semantics, the Police also serve the Queen. The declaration made by all police officers is contained in the Police Act: "I....................of....................do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law." Note the word "impartiality". 'Taking the knee' while on duty in front of a crowd of demonstrators is hardly an expression of impartiality. Not for one moment can I imagine a member of our armed forces acting in such a manner. I'll say no more!

I don't think judges would have too much of a problem - they actually read and (usually) understand the law. Policemen of today, it seems, don't bother, and rely instead on what they read in the media or see on the television.

There is only ONE restriction on movement: "During the emergency period, no person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse." That is still in force. Everything else is how that restriction can be ignored without fear of prosecution. So there has to be a "reasonable excuse" for anyone to go out. The regulations originally set out a list, which was not exhaustive, of circumstances which would be a "reasonable excuse". That list has now been expanded, by subsequent guidance from the government, as to what would be considered rasonable, in the light of subsequent developments. The basic restriction hasn't been lifted. It's just that more "reasonable excuses" have been provided by government advice.

As ever, the devil in in the detail. When people are going about their business individually, there is no law that says they mustn't go within 2 metres of someone else. It just a very sensible precaution (or so we're told). However, if a number of people decide to gather in a public place, whether or not they are within 2 metres of each other, the law says: During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except— (a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household... Relying on sound bites is never a good idea. BTW, what is the difference between Regulation and Legislation? Regarding Covid-19 the primary legislation is the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, under which the regulation, The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, was made.

Latest government advice is here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-guidance-on-spending-time-outdoors

You could always try to push the boundaries, but I'll repeat, the law is that you don't leave the place in which you are living. Everything else is guidance on what might be considered to be a reasonable excuse. There is further government guidance here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do Take a look at paragraphs 1.7 and 1.9. If you still think there is a carte blanche to swan around England as you wish, good luck with Plod.

But that's a different topic all together.

I wondered the same thing, but as the government has said it is the guidance that has changed, not the law, it doesn't appear so.

So what would happen if, despite government guidance that leisure boating isn't one of those activities that should resume, the BA tells us we can start using our boats again. The regulation is very clear: "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse." It would be the boater who would have to convince a court that ignoring government advice, in favour of the advice given by an unaccountable quango, is a "reasonable excuse" for contravening that regulation. I wouldn't like to be defending that case.

Define day-boat. If I take out a small open boat for the day, I will have no on-board hand-washing facilities (OK, so I can take some alcohol gel, which is less effective than soap and hot water), no toilet facilities (bucket-and-chuck-it or bin liner...nice) and public facilites are all closed. If I take my cabin cruiser out for the day, I have on-board soap and hot water and full toilet facilities available. My common sense tells me a cabin cruiser, used for a day, is preferable.

Paragraphs 1.7 and 1.9 of this government document https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do

Can I just say that I think the BA is doing a sterling job, JP in sole charge seems to be the way to go, and I do hope the tolls are trebled next year, so that they have much more money to waste spend. Well, someone's got to stand up for them, now that MM has joined the ranks of the 'little people' Welcome aboard

Just to be clear, the law on this is contained in The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 Section 6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. Section 6 (2) then gives circumstances that may be considered to be 'reasonable excuse'. Going on holiday is not on that list. The fundamental restriction is designed to prevent people from leaving the place where they are living, so, yes, travel is being prevented.

But boaters have no organisation that is willing to put forward the case on their behalf.

No trace of it on the Charities Commission web site, that I can find. From the Salhouse Broad web site: The site is managed by the landowner, Henry Cator, and the Salhouse Broad Rangers, as a sustainable business. Henry knows the importance of protecting the Broad’s past, whilst also meeting the needs and challenges of the future. Management therefore focuses on maintaining and improving the visitor facilities at Salhouse Broad, whilst retaining its value for wildlife, heritage and community. To that end, income generated by the Broad goes back into the upkeep, maintenance, conservation and improvements to access of Salhouse Broad. Ironically, had the family not taken it back from the Broads Authority a few years ago, the current costs would be borne by the toll payers.