Latest BA Advice On Covid Lockdown

[Meantime]

31 minutes ago, Paul said:

The .GOV website states .....

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).

I cannot think of anywhere in the UK, even in central London which is twenty miles from a green space. 

The wording and intent of the current restrictions are, I believe much clearer than those written for the first lock down. They are not in any way ambiguous and are designed to protect us all. I am afraid it is people who decide that these rules do not apply to them who are the main reason this new lock down was necessary and why we are facing a Christmas with restrictions on who we can be with, how many may celebrate together etc.

The attached document is the Bill, or the law of the land. Please explain to me which part of that I have broken? I like your emotive use of the Christmas subject, but my walk today will NOT be the reason we are still in lockdown or facing restrictions this Christmas. I did not break, bend or interpret any of the laws of the land by what I did today. I did not place myself or anyone else at risk by what I did today. 

Today I came back home to find one of my neighbor's had two visitors cars on her driveway. They were friends of hers. Perhaps if she had taken some "non-essential" travel and driven to a country park and met one of them and gone for a walk it might have been a better option? Another neighbor three doors down has had her Mother there first thing this morning and then her sister was there when I came home. She has two children who are still going to school. I believe it was a mistake not to shut schools for this lockdown and that a lot of the transmission is happening within schools and then spreading at home and then onto the extended families. Her actions today has put her Mother and sister at risk.

Me I'm going to bed tired tonight, content at having a good day and was happy until I read your post!!!! So well done on that!

uksi_20201200_en.pdf

[Maxwellian]

Please play nicely. I see the preauthorisation button like a mirage in the distance. It is a last resort to keeping thing friendly.

night night all, sleep well.

[Vaughan]

7 hours ago, Meantime said:

The attached document is the Bill, or the law of the land. Please explain to me which part of that I have broken? I like your emotive use of the Christmas subject, but my walk today will NOT be the reason we are still in lockdown or facing restrictions this Christmas. I did not break, bend or interpret any of the laws of the land by what I did today. I did not place myself or anyone else at risk by what I did today. 

I thoroughly agree with this. People should not be made to feel like social pariahs when they are not breaking any laws.

As someone who has been used to wearing an army gas mask for days and nights running, on NATO exercises, I find the face nappies that we are supposed to think of as protection, are pathetically inadequate. But the law says I have to wear the thing, so I do. That doesn't mean I believe in it. 

There is an article in yesterday's EDP where the chairman of the Broads Society is complaining that boat owners still don't know whether they can use their boats or not, and the BA don't know either. Surely this is pathetic? I understand that I must be careful in a supermarket and take precautions but what on Earth harm am I going to do to myself or anyone else on my own boat, out in the open air on Barton Broad? 

Give me a sensible answer to this sort of nonsense and I might be persuaded!

[ChrisB]

I think the comparison between a face covering and respirator gas mask is a bit of a red herring.

Face coverings have been worn in the Far East for ever. They have a completely different use to a gas mask. They are not to protect the wearer, they are worn to protect third parties being exposed to airborn droplets expelled by coughing, sneezing and general breathing, sighing etc.

When for a few years I rode the Metropolitan Line from Chalfont & Latimer to Liverpool Street I was never without a cold in Winter. I am sure if mask wearing was etiquette in London, like Tokyo, when one had the sniffles, less would be passed on.

[Meantime]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I thoroughly agree with this. People should not be made to feel like social pariahs when they are not breaking any laws.

Thank you Vaughan. I know we can have our differences, but on the above we can fully agree. 

I still insist I did not break any law in that Bill yesterday and I still insist that this set of National restrictions are not the same as the first lockdown back in Spring. Seems I am not the only one to think that either.

"You may only leave home for specific reasons, including:

For education; For work, say if you cannot work from home; For exercise and recreation outdoors, with your household or on your own with one person from another household; For medical reasons, appointments and to escape injury or harm; To shop for food and essentials; And to provide care for vulnerable people, or as a volunteer."

"There will be some differences compared to March."

"We are not going back to the full-scale lockdown of March and April

It is less prohibitive and less restrictive"

The quotes above are directly from the Prime Minister Boris Johnsons speech on the 31st October when he addressed the nation to announce bringing in the  national set of restrictions.

That is why I am doing some things differently to what I did during the first lockdown. The one thing I am not doing differently is taking as many precautions as I can when I step outside my front door.

[Vaughan]

28 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Thank you Vaughan. I know we can have our differences, but on the above we can fully agree. 

I certainly don't disagree for the sake of it : only when our opinions differ!  

 

29 minutes ago, Meantime said:

The one thing I am not doing differently is taking as many precautions as I can when I step outside my front door.

Just as I have always done, every winter, to avoid the 'flu and other bugs.  I haven't had the 'flu in donkey's years and the only time I ever catch a heavy cold is when I come back to England and get on a train!

Surely these sort of common sense precautions are really nothing new.  Meantime our whole way of life as we have known it, as well as the economy of whole nations, is being thrown out of the window by draconian and arbitrary regulation which, when it comes to it, is too confusing and contradictory to be understood, even by those who want to abide by it.

[Paul]

The forecast for tomorrow is a bit better, I think I'll do some Christmas Shopping tomorrow, Sweets, they must come from the sweet shop in Beccles, then up to Roys for some presents, some decorations from Lathams, Then perhaps a drive down to Whitlingham for some outdoor recreation. I'll get a takeaway somewhere whilst I'm out. 

Then drive home to Leicestershire. After all, I will not be breaking any law, shall I?

Legally I am not required to wear a face covering because of a medical condition. I can bear one for half an hour, more than that I really struggle, so I do wear one whenever I go into a shop and have since they were made advisory, then mandatory.  I make sure I don't go anywhere that I should need to wear one for longer than I can cope with. I don't hide behind the law to escape doing what is right. 

[JennyMorgan]

43 minutes ago, Paul said:

Then drive home to Leicestershire. After all, I will not be breaking any law, shall I?

I really can't be bothered to read through the pages of this thread again or indeed HMG's rules but I can't help feeling that you are not adhering to the spirit of the present lockdown if not to the letter of the law. 

[JennyMorgan]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk-sailors-return-to-the-broads-after-guidance-change-1-6931035

[Vaughan]

Well that all sounds great but if you read the last three lines, it is still not clear, is it?

 

[Paul]

2 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Well that all sounds great but if you read the last three lines, it is still not clear, is it?

 

you mean the bit that says

Quote

“Non-essential travel is not permitted anywhere in England at this time, including on waterways.”

 

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

The forecast for tomorrow is a bit better, I think I'll do some Christmas Shopping tomorrow, Sweets, they must come from the sweet shop in Beccles, then up to Roys for some presents, some decorations from Lathams, Then perhaps a drive down to Whitlingham for some outdoor recreation. I'll get a takeaway somewhere whilst I'm out. 

Then drive home to Leicestershire. After all, I will not be breaking any law, shall I?

Legally I am not required to wear a face covering because of a medical condition. I can bear one for half an hour, more than that I really struggle, so I do wear one whenever I go into a shop and have since they were made advisory, then mandatory.  I make sure I don't go anywhere that I should need to wear one for longer than I can cope with. I don't hide behind the law to escape doing what is right. 

And I don't think you are going to do any of that.

I think that like me, you have noticed the trend of posting an attention seeking story of how one has/intends to break the law (or am I?) or go against the spirit of guidance followed by their own justification for same. There was one about bulk buying bog rolls I remember.

I think it's because people have exhausted all the arguments in this thread and there's little chance of anyone changing their point of view. 

But we all have the right of free speech and expressing it here, including boring, pointless stuff is good for our mental health and well-being.

So is it possible to remove this thread from the latest thread list to make way for more productive/entertaining threads? Anyone wishing to carry on can do so via the follow mechanism. 

[Meantime]

2 hours ago, Paul said:

The forecast for tomorrow is a bit better, I think I'll do some Christmas Shopping tomorrow, Sweets, they must come from the sweet shop in Beccles, then up to Roys for some presents, some decorations from Lathams, Then perhaps a drive down to Whitlingham for some outdoor recreation. I'll get a takeaway somewhere whilst I'm out. 

Then drive home to Leicestershire. After all, I will not be breaking any law, shall I?

I would have thought the sweet shop in Beccles would be closed as it is non essential retail.

However I am surprised that you think the above is in any way comparable to a 3hr walk in a country park with one other person.

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

you mean the bit that says

Quote

“Non-essential travel is not permitted anywhere in England at this time, including on waterways.”

That is a quote from a "Defra Spokesperson"

Can you explain to me why the country parks are opening and openly accepting visitors?

Can you explain to me why all the National Trust parks and grounds are open and welcoming visitors? Most of these are country estates and require you to drive to access them.

Can you explain to me why Game was open for click and collect orders during the week? Currys is open for click and collect orders. Are all the above breaking the law?

Can you show me any section of the Corona virus Bill enacted on the 4th November that states that non-essential travel is not permitted?

[Paul]

3 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Can you show me any section of the Corona virus Bill enacted on the 4th November that states that non-essential travel is not permitted?

keep your hair on, perhaps you need to refer that question to DEFRA, it was there spokesman, not I. 

 

And no, I can't explain why all those things are open, in my eyes given current "guidelines" they shouldn't be, but as you say there is a difference between guidance and legislation. One we are obliged to follow, the other will only be followed by those wishing to see an end to this pandemic. 

[Paladin]

10 minutes ago, Paul said:

keep your hair on, perhaps you need to refer that question to DEFRA, it was there spokesman, not I. 

 

And no, I can't explain why all those things are open, in my eyes given current "guidelines" they shouldn't be, but as you say there is a difference between guidance and legislation. One we are obliged to follow, the other will only be followed by those wishing to see an end to this pandemic. 

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

[Paul]

1 minute ago, Paladin said:

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

so then why is there such a variance between government advice and legislation? I am not disputing Meantime's point of view, legislation does still permit many things which "advice" says we shouldn't do. 

[Meantime]

Edited as the post it refers to has been removed.

[OldBerkshireBoy]

4 minutes ago, Meantime said:

If you want to join in a reasoned debate, then please do, if you'd rather not then please don't, but lets not make it personal.

That post has been removed.

[finny]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-testing-site-closed-after-23014900

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, finny said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-testing-site-closed-after-23014900

I was watching a news article about the mass testing program taking place in Liverpool during the week. Now I understand the reason for why they are piloting the mass testing, but the news article showed a queue of people stretching around a car park waiting to be tested. Most had masks on, but the majority were barely half a metre apart in the queue. What is the point of taking part and going to be tested even if you feel like you have non of the symptoms if you are going to put yourself at risk in the process? You may not have had corona virus before you left your house to be tested, but may well have caught it from the asymptomatic person you were standing half a metre away from in the queue. 

It really doesn't matter what our reasons for leaving home are. We should all abide by the hands space face advice first and foremost.

[Paladin]

11 hours ago, Paul said:

so then why is there such a variance between government advice and legislation? I am not disputing Meantime's point of view, legislation does still permit many things which "advice" says we shouldn't do. 

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.

[Paul]

12 minutes ago, Paladin said:

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.

From what I see, "guidance" is usually more restrictive than "legislation". Let us use the outdoor recreation as an example. Guidance on the .gov website says that you may leave your home for outdoor recreation but this should be locally wherever possible, however the legislation makes no reference to that. 

A couple of days after lock down we had a circular from our local PCC asking all residents of the county to adher to the guidelines and make policing the lock down easier etc etc, note he states guidelines, not law. It goes on to say that officers will be deployed checking for breaches in the guidelines (there's that word again) and using their powers to issue fixed penalties to those in breach. 

Now we have sen reports in our local press of motorists being stopped, checkpoint style to check that their journey is essential, which is a very misleading word IMO, as the guidelines make little if any reference to essential, to me "permitted" would be more accurate. What I'm really asking is by what authority the constabulary are policing "guidelines" which to me is exceeding their authority, or is there some wording in the emergency measure bill, or whatever it is called that was passed when the pandemic started that makes government "advice" enforceable?

 

[Vaughan]

17 minutes ago, Paul said:

A couple of days after lock down we had a circular from our local PCC asking all residents of the county to adher to the guidelines and make policing the lock down easier etc etc, note he states guidelines, not law. It goes on to say that officers will be deployed checking for breaches in the guidelines (there's that word again) and using their powers to issue fixed penalties to those in breach. 

Very interesting.  As a layman, this would sound to me as though the police may be acting illegally.

[Meantime]

If we use the example of speed limits I would say that where you see a 30 in a red circle the law is that the maximum speed limit in that area is 30mph. 

Now the guidance might be to pay particular attention to road conditions, or to pay special attention to your speed in built up areas or around schools. You might even see a 30 in a black circle on the approach to the 30 mph zone. The speed limit in a black circle is not enforceable, but is guidance that you are approaching a 30mph zone.

Now the cautious amongst us might decide to do 25 mph or something less than the speed limit.

However most will see the legal limit as 30 mph and do something very close to 30mph.

Then there are those who understand that the Police tend to allow a 10% margin or error for speedometers and will rarely prosecute for less than 33mph in a 30mph zone. The people who "bend" the law, or the "spirit" of the law will be those that knowingly do 32 or 33mph and are knowingly breaking the law because they expect to get away with it.

Then there are those who have a total disregard for the law and will regularly do speeds well in excess of 30mph knowing full well they are breaking the law, but happy to do so as long as they think the Police are not around.