Coronavirus And The Broads

[Ray]

11 minutes ago, vanessan said:

Trouble is with all the ‘talk’, we never really know for sure until the words come from government officials. No doubt there will be more guidelines to be interpreted when something positive happens on breaking the lockdown!

Indeed, I do wish they would firm up new guidelines to the point they don't need interpreting and are simply instructions!

The arguments locally get quite heated and it's only really because the law wasn't made the same as the guidelines!

[MauriceMynah]

As I have explained earlier, making something "Law" and putting it in black and white so to speak, doesn't always get the job done. It is better in these circumstances to push for the spirit rather than tying it down. People are more likely to respond positively when asked rather than told.

Generally, I think this has been proven over the last 5 weeks or so.

Yes there has been discussion on what the rules should be, how they are to be interpreted, but even those questioning them have in reality, done what the government wanted them to do, without the authorities being too heavy handed. I know there have been incidents, but I am speaking generally.

If it becomes apparent that I can visit my boat, I shall do so but not before. and not before I am allowed to stay on it. Shopping is shopping, so that "constant" is the same where-ever I am. When one is alone, social distancing is easy.

[unclemike]

1 hour ago, Ray said:

Indeed, I do wish they would firm up new guidelines to the point they don't need interpreting and are simply instructions!

The arguments locally get quite heated and it's only really because the law wasn't made the same as the guidelines!

do you really want a police state?, be careful what you wish for, its all about using common sense or not in certain cases. sat in the car in morrisons car park people watching whilst pat shops  recommended one person per household to reduce number of shoppers, simples,not really, over half were couples and/or families, even one couple with 4 young kids

[Ray]

2 minutes ago, chameleon said:

do you really want a police state?, be careful what you wish for, its all about using common sense or not in certain cases. sat in the car in morrisons car park people watching whilst pat shops  recommended one person per household to reduce number of shoppers, simples,not really, over half were couples and/or families, even one couple with 4 young kids

Of course no one wants a police state but the very problem you highlight could be solved if it were a law. It wouldn't be hard for government to bring in temporary measures with a sunset clause to avoid the worry of over zealous state control.

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, chameleon said:

do you really want a police state?, be careful what you wish for, its all about using common sense or not in certain cases. sat in the car in morrisons car park people watching whilst pat shops  recommended one person per household to reduce number of shoppers, simples,not really, over half were couples and/or families, even one couple with 4 young kids

I know what you mean. I visited Morrisons yesterday, about three in front in the queue is a couple. The security guard comes and has a word and the man walks off leaving the woman alone in the queue. Security out of sight, the man joins the back of the queue. Later on in the store the couple are once again shopping together with the one trolley!!!!

[Poppy]

5 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

I know what you mean. I visited Morrisons yesterday, about three in front in the queue is a couple. The security guard comes and has a word and the man walks off leaving the woman alone in the queue. Security out of sight, the man joins the back of the queue. Later on in the store the couple are once again shopping together with the one trolley!!!!

My missus caught me watching 'adult stuff', tutted and went upstairs.

Anyway she come back down dressed in a nurses uniform, "Wow, " I said, "time for fun and sex games then?" "Is it heck, " she replied, "get your coat, were going shopping. "

[MauriceMynah]

I offer a challenge. 

If anyone here can put down in writing what that law should say, in a way that has no loopholes, that has no way of being misinterpreted and that is clear and concise so that it goes unchallenged by any other member here, then let him (or her) do so.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, MauriceMynah said:

I offer a challenge. 

If anyone here can put down in writing what that law should say, in a way that has no loopholes, that has no way of being misinterpreted and that is clear and concise so that it goes unchallenged by any other member here, then let him (or her) do so.

Stay at home, unless you need to go out. 

[Poppy]

2 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Stay at home, unless you need to go out. 

Clear enough

[MauriceMynah]

For legal purposes, define "home", define "need" and define "out".

[vanessan]

Warwick University have apparently carried out research (?!) which has resulted in the recommendation that all over 60s (yes, 60s) should remain in lockdown far longer than anyone else. (I would imagine young students have come up with this!) Baroness Altmann however believes it would be very damaging to keep the elderly locked up, particularly the fit and otherwise healthy over 70s. I really don’t think it will be the over 60s or 70s who will be rushing to party or congregate in big groups on street corners. I’m sure the vast majority of us will be taking all possible steps to avoid anywhere deemed ‘at risk’ for some considerable while. 

[grendel]

but MM it has always been this way, the law gives a general statement, (usually a couple of paragraphs) and then the regulations (usually a couple or more thick books) give guidance on how to comply with the law.

[Ray]

34 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

I know what you mean. I visited Morrisons yesterday, about three in front in the queue is a couple. The security guard comes and has a word and the man walks off leaving the woman alone in the queue. Security out of sight, the man joins the back of the queue. Later on in the store the couple are once again shopping together with the one trolley!!!!

 

27 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I offer a challenge. 

If anyone here can put down in writing what that law should say, in a way that has no loopholes, that has no way of being misinterpreted and that is clear and concise so that it goes unchallenged by any other member here, then let him (or her) do so.

Only one person per household allowed in a shop at one time. Household meaning shared dwelling. Shop meaning a place that sells stuff.

Now I'm sure that could be taken apart by m'learned friends  But the folks forever looking for loopholes would have fewer legs to be bewildered by 👍

[Meantime]

18 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

For legal purposes, define "home", define "need" and define "out".

ok I was being facetious, but here goes.

Home

NOUN

the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household.

Need

VERB

require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable.

Out

The opposite of being at home.

Out Out

For this I refer you to Micky Flanagan 

[MauriceMynah]

ECIPA, I know you were being facetious, but as Poppy had replied I thought I'd better. In your less facetious post you define the words I asked, but even within those definitions there are grey areas.

The situation I describe below is far from permanent so cannot be my home. Rough sleepers have been temporarily housed in hotels. A situation even less permanent to my own.

The words "Need" and "out" are equally open to debate

I am currently residing in a house owned by an elderly lady. Her son lives there and I have been staying as a guest. The elderly lady is too old to do the shopping and her son has no driving license. I am responsible for my personal goods and some of the food. Her son is responsible for the rest of the food and personal goods for the two of them. to reduce travel to it's minimum, her son and I go together. Two people obeying the spirit.

HMOs would have similar issues.

It could be argued that as the only residence I own is my boat, I should be on it? (I wish) ! but that would be against the spirit.

No, once again I say that the spirit is what's needed, not Law.

[Poppy]

30 minutes ago, grendel said:

but MM it has always been this way, the law gives a general statement, (usually a couple of paragraphs) and then the regulations (usually a couple or more thick books) give guidance on how to comply with the law.

Historically the Courts have always interpreted English law . However it appears that the Police are being permitted to do the interpretation in this instance , and despite guidance from the NPCC England there are variations from county to county. If you disagree with the copper who, for what ever reason pulls you up you can accept a penalty or decide to take it befor the magistrates .

Word of a copper against that of Joe Public ? We all know how that's going to end up, don't we.

 

[Hylander]

Are we allowed to go out rowing on the Broads now?  Taken a moment ago and the car in the distance had just arrived to sit and watch the river.      Very much social distancing I would have thought and no chance of passing on the virus either.

 

 

[Poppy]

20 minutes ago, Hylander said:

Are we allowed to go out rowing on the Broads now?  Taken a moment ago and the car in the distance had just arrived to sit and watch the river.      Very much social distancing I would have thought and no chance of passing on the virus either.

 

 

But still not permitted it seems

[unclemike]

4 hours ago, Ray said:

Of course no one wants a police state but the very problem you highlight could be solved if it were a law. It wouldn't be hard for government to bring in temporary measures with a sunset clause to avoid the worry of over zealous state control.

the highlighted problem is people, those who think they know better than the gov't, those who don't care ,those who's agenda is more important than anyone elses.no matter how many laws you set up these people will ignore them to suit their own ends.

[Hylander]

Oh for the days when the 3 R race can continue and all of the fun it entailed ,  even when it goes wrong....

 

 

[Ray]

11 minutes ago, chameleon said:

the highlighted problem is people, those who think they know better than the gov't, those who don't care ,those who's agenda is more important than anyone elses.no matter how many laws you set up these people will ignore them to suit their own ends.

Then I'm not sure why you were concerned that my earlier comment invited some sort of police state, my fault as I think I'm sitting around far too much and its making me "wooly"

Quite agree that those who never intend to do the right thing in the first place won't be changed by either guidance or law 

[Poppy]

Social media. We all have our own vision of what people ought to be doing regardless ! 

Then there are those who feel the need to act on their vision

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-police-issue-fines-breaking-lockdown-rules-1-6633581

 

[Poppy]

RoSPA says, “In 2018, 99 pedal cyclists were killed, 4,106 seriously injured and 13,345 slightly injured in Great Britain.”

Not as many as I would have thought! Might go out on my bike again! anyone got any lycra I could borrow ?

That is still over 4000 that probably required ambulance assistance, under the present circumstances that is not acceptable.  ctva is right, cycling should be banned, especially as we are told that we would need the assistance of emergency help in the event of a boating incident

[Lockdownlucy]

As the broads is currently unavailable to use , making our boat unusable at this time , shouldn't the river toll be adjusted accordingly and either run for a year from when the braods re-open or refunded for however many months are affected. Everything else that has closed, cancelled or unusable is being refunded or tariffs frozen until up and running  again. Hire fleets have been told they dont have to pay it while not open. 

[Meantime]

Lies, damned lies and statistics springs to mind here. 2018 a normal year for road traffic, rush hour traffic and no stay at home lock down.

How many of those deaths and injuries were caused due to the over crowding on the roads, that shouldn't exist currently due to so many people staying at home?