Latest BA Advice On Covid Lockdown

[ExSurveyor]

10 minutes ago, marshman said:

Don't disagree in principle but how come you seem to be able to do all manner of things on the Lakes up north??

Even you should see that people will be more keen to support things if its clear and consistent?

 

 

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

[JennyMorgan]

4 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

A real national park says 'come boating'.

A sham national park says 'don't come boating'.

Someone has boobed, but who?

[ranworthbreeze]

3 hours ago, Paladin said:

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.

 

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

[Paladin]

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?

[Paladin]

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.

[rightsaidfred]

19 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?

With your interpretation I would suggest the real NP as that appears to encourage unnecessary travel which is the real crux of the matter, its not what you do but how far you travel to do it.

Fred

[floydraser]

7 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

With your interpretation I would suggest the real NP as that appears to encourage unnecessary travel which is the real crux of the matter, its not what you do but how far you travel to do it.

Fred

Not so. If you're on holiday at White Cross Bay in a self catering unit you are next to the old Sunderland flying boat slipway.

[rightsaidfred]

18 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Not so. If you're on holiday at White Cross Bay in a self catering unit you are next to the old Sunderland flying boat slipway.

People already on holiday are entitled to finish this week not the scenario we are talking about.

Fred

[Meantime]

42 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

With your interpretation I would suggest the real NP as that appears to encourage unnecessary travel which is the real crux of the matter, its not what you do but how far you travel to do it.

Fred

The Coronavirus Bill, the law, not interpretations or advice or guidance, give a number of exceptions for being outside your house. The Bill, or law does not set a limit on how far you can travel to perform those tasks that are covered by the exemptions.

This is one of the exceptions;

"(d) to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation— (i) alone, (ii) with— (aa) one or more members of their household, their linked household, or (bb) where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or (iii) with one other person who is not a member of their household or their linked household, and paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph;"

Note that is says open air "recreation", not exercise. Exercise is covered in the previous section of the bill, again without distance limits.

That coupled with the not being able to stay away from home overnight, effectively places the limits on how far you can travel for your recreation, assuming of course that;

1. Your navigation Authority doesn't give it's own advice, guidance or interpretation of the law.

2. Your marina doesn't follow that guidance and lock you out from getting access to your boat for recreation.

 

[floydraser]

8 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

People already on holiday are entitled to finish this week not the scenario we are talking about.

Fred

On the basis that people are still on holiday it would have been silly to ban boating at either place so neither one is encouraging travel, just helping out people already there.

 

[Smoggy]

10 minutes ago, Meantime said:

The Coronavirus Bill, the law, not interpretations or advice or guidance, give a number of exceptions for being outside your house. The Bill, or law does not set a limit on how far you can travel to perform those tasks that are covered by the exemptions.

This is one of the exceptions;

"(d) to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation— (i) alone, (ii) with— (aa) one or more members of their household, their linked household, or (bb) where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or (iii) with one other person who is not a member of their household or their linked household, and paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph;"

Note that is says open air "recreation", not exercise. Exercise is covered in the previous section of the bill, again without distance limits.

That coupled with the not being able to stay away from home overnight, effectively places the limits on how far you can travel for your recreation, assuming of course that;

1. Your navigation Authority doesn't give it's own advice, guidance or interpretation of the law.

2. Your marina doesn't follow that guidance and lock you out from getting access to your boat for recreation.

 

The big point being it's no business of either option 1 or 2 to make that decision, it's the law above that counts and gets to choose for us.

If a marina locks you out they are not providing a service you are paying for so demand a refund for the time you have no access, if ba tell you that being on your boat is not allowed tell them to take a hike or call the police, they will work to the law not ba guidance.

Wether you SHOULD go to the boat is another question but it doesn't mean you CAN'T, I won't because I know I shouldn't unless it's a needed quick winterising visit but that is unlikely before december.

[Cheesey69]

This is the problem we are finding.

You think you know the rules.

You think the rules are common sense according to you.

But few have actually read the things.

Few understand the difference between the rules and guidelines. and that the latter can change.

 

[rightsaidfred]

21 minutes ago, Meantime said:

The Coronavirus Bill, the law, not interpretations or advice or guidance, give a number of exceptions for being outside your house. The Bill, or law does not set a limit on how far you can travel to perform those tasks that are covered by the exemptions.

This is one of the exceptions;

"(d) to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation— (i) alone, (ii) with— (aa) one or more members of their household, their linked household, or (bb) where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or (iii) with one other person who is not a member of their household or their linked household, and paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph;"

Note that is says open air "recreation", not exercise. Exercise is covered in the previous section of the bill, again without distance limits.

That coupled with the not being able to stay away from home overnight, effectively places the limits on how far you can travel for your recreation, assuming of course that;

1. Your navigation Authority doesn't give it's own advice, guidance or interpretation of the law.

2. Your marina doesn't follow that guidance and lock you out from getting access to your boat for recreation.

 

How far do you want to stretch a point, I dont need laws or regulations to tell me whats reasonable but then I dont need them to tell me how to behave responsibly either, we are all suffering loss of freedoms at the moment some of us in the name of the common good, some because they cant find away round and then again there are those  that just do as they please because they dont care a fig about anyone but themselves.

Fred

[Meantime]

51 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

How far do you want to stretch a point, I dont need laws or regulations to tell me whats reasonable but then I dont need them to tell me how to behave responsibly either, we are all suffering loss of freedoms at the moment some of us in the name of the common good, some because they cant find away round and then again there are those  that just do as they please because they dont care a fig about anyone but themselves.

Fred

The point is that the law does not restrict one sensible person, or their household from going to their boat, whether that be a 15min or 1hr drive away. The marina's and the BA should not be restricting that or issuing guidance against that. Whether you feel you should, or shouldn't, whether it's in the "spirit" of the regulations or not, it is all irrelevant because as laudible as your aims are on what you might or might not do, going to your boat is hardly the problem. The problem is the firework party going on 5 doors away from me with about 30 guests and I bet the same is happening all over the country. 

I would rather abide by the law and be "irresponsible" in the eyes of some and go to my boat on my own, then join a firework party with more than just my household as many across the land are doing tonight and tomorrow and until the pubs reopen.

Lastly I would point out that is the sensible amongst us who are experiencing a loss of freedom. There is a large percentage of the population who as always are doing what they want and not being sensible and I don't mean just being irresponsible in your eyes because they want to go somewhere for recreation on their own or with their immediate household.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Meantime said:

The point is that the law does not restrict one sensible person, or their household from going to their boat, whether that be a 15min or 1hr drive away. The marina's and the BA should not be restricting that or issuing guidance against that. Whether you feel you should, or shouldn't, whether it's in the "spirit" of the regulations or not, it is all irrelevant because as laudible as your aims are on what you might or might not do, going to your boat is hardly the problem. The problem is the firework party going on 5 doors away from me with about 30 guests and I bet the same is happening all over the country. 

I would rather abide by the law and be "irresponsible" in the eyes of some and go to my boat on my own, then join a firework party with more than just my household as many across the land are doing tonight and tomorrow and until the pubs reopen.

Lastly I would point out that is the sensible amongst us who are experiencing a loss of freedom. There is a large percentage of the population who as always are doing what they want and not being sensible and I don't mean just being irresponsible in your eyes because they want to go somewhere for recreation on their own or with their immediate household.

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

[Paladin]

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.
 

[Meantime]

18 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

and I would have thought the requirement would be to show that a journey was necessary.

Fred

That maybe what you think, or wish, but it is not what the law of the land has stated as enacted in parliament on the 4th November.

The full list of exceptions are listed below. None are limited by time or distance, other than the fact that you are not allowed to stay away from home overnight. Even visits to recycling centres are allowed.

In the first lockdown I fully followed the rules. In this lockdown I fully intend to follow the rules. In the first lockdown I followed the spirit of the rules. It has made diddly squat difference because so many people partied, protested and generally thought the virus had gone away once the first lockdown had been eased. 

Since the easing of the first lockdown restrictions, I have carried on being extremely careful, whilst trying to return my life to a sense of normality. I am getting sick and tired of the amount of people that still get to close in supermarkets, do not, or will not, or claim exemption from wearing masks. I really do not care why you don't, cannot or will not wear a mask, just keep away from me whilst I am wearing a mask. 

I will continue to live my life carefully because I value my life, but I am sick and tired of those who want to lock me in my house when I could be doing something in virtual isolation that effects no one else. I will no longer be guilt tripped by those who want to tell me my journey is too long, not neccessary, not responsible, when the law says I can do it, and I know it will have diddly squat difference on whether we have a third or a fourth lockdown.

Exceptions: leaving home

6.—(1) These are the exceptions referred to in regulation 5.

Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes

(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)—

(a)to buy goods or obtain services from any business or service listed in Part 3 of the Schedule, for—

(i)P or for those in the same household,

(ii)vulnerable persons, or

(iii)persons in the same household as a vulnerable person;

(b)to obtain money from or deposit money with any business listed in paragraph 43 or 44 of the Schedule;

(c)to take exercise outside—

(i)alone,

(ii)with—

(aa)one or more members of their household, their linked household, or

(bb)where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or

(iii)in a public outdoor place, with one other person who is not a member of their household, their linked household or their linked childcare household,

and paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph;

(d)to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation—

(i)alone,

(ii)with—

(aa)one or more members of their household, their linked household, or

(bb)where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or

(iii)with one other person who is not a member of their household or their linked household,

and paragraph (3) applies in determining whether a person is complying with the limits in this sub-paragraph;

(e)to attend a place of worship;

(f)to attend an event commemorating Remembrance Sunday or to attend the gathering referred in regulation 11(18)(a)(ii);

(g)to undertake any of the following activities in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property—

(i)visiting estate or letting agents, developer sales offices or show homes;

(ii)viewing residential properties to look for a property to buy or to rent;

(iii)preparing a residential property to move in;

(iv)moving house;

(v)visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property;

(h)to visit a member of a household which is a linked household in relation to P’s household;

(i)to collect food, drink or other goods which have been ordered from a business, or to access goods or services which are provided, in any way permitted by regulation 17 or 18;

(j)to visit a waste disposal or recycling centre.

 

[grendel]

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.

[Paladin]

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.

[vanessan]

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.

As indicated by something I heard on the radio yesterday. A couple walking along the prom in Weston Super Mare decided to sit on a bench for a few minutes. Two policemen approached them and told them they were not allowed to sit there, they had to keep moving!
I think ‘experts’ are having trouble too. On Radio Kent yesterday, one was asked if fishing was allowed. He said ‘it wasn’t last lockdown so I would imagine it’s not this time either’. (I believe it is allowed this time?)

Another was asked if it would be ok to drive from the south east of England to the north west to pick up a new car. ‘That’s ok he said, car sales in that respect are open’. I would have thought that particular drive would be deemed non-essential?

No wonder there is so much confusion! 

 

 

[Meantime]

57 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.

And therein lies the problem. On another thread you were quite quick to point to a government fact checker website, yet you are peddling the myth that the journey must be necessary!

At the end of the part of the bill I copied here it says "(j)to visit a waste disposal or recycling centre."

It doesn't say it has to be necessary to visit a recycling centre, it doesn't say it has to be within a certain distance from home, it doesn't say it even has to be the closest.

Even the prime minister has said that this lockdown is not as restrictive as the first lockdown. During the first one recycling centres were closed. I believe there were four reason you could be outside your home. I believe that J is the tenth letter of the alphabet, ergo there must be at least ten reasons you can be outside your home this time around.

I am not encouraging anyone to take risks or be frivalous, but what I do believe and it is backed up by the government is that lockdown is very damaging to the economy and extremely damaging mentally, which is why the government recognised that this lockdown needed to be less restricted and provide for a few more safe activities such as driving to a place for recreation. Basically they learnt some of the lessons from the first lockdown.

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, vanessan said:

As indicated by something I heard on the radio yesterday. A couple walking along the prom in Weston Super Mare decided to sit on a bench for a few minutes. Two policemen approached them and told them they were not allowed to sit there, they had to keep moving!
I think ‘experts’ are having trouble too. On Radio Kent yesterday, one was asked if fishing was allowed. He said ‘it wasn’t last lockdown so I would imagine it’s not this time either’. (I believe it is allowed this time?)

Another was asked if it would be ok to drive from the south east of England to the north west to pick up a new car. ‘That’s ok he said, car sales in that respect are open’. I would have thought that particular drive would be deemed non-essential?

No wonder there is so much confusion! 

 

 

One such "expert" was asked on BBC news a viewers question about were they allowed to go and pick up a puppy that they had purchased? The response was no as it was non essential travel. They were told they would have to have it delivered!!!!!! When pushed, his logic was that couriers were an essential business and could continue to work. Yet I'm receiving emails daily from all manner of companies saying that their shop is closed, but they are open for click and collect.

[grendel]

2 minutes ago, Paladin said:

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

It may be but the word necessary has been used in all the published guidance, according to that you should avoid unnecessary travel, therefore it boils down to whether your journey is considered necessary, while you might try arguing the exact wording of the law if you are stopped, i am sure that you would then be seen to be unnecessarily obstructive, which wont do you any favours with a police officer who has stopped you.

I have a letter on company headed paper stating that i am a key utility worker in a company that serves over 4 million customers, that i could produce to explain why I am travelling if i get stopped. other than your interpretation of the regulations, what do you have to rely on if stopped?

While you are probably correct with your statement, and would be able to argue the fact if it went to court, the first person you need to convince would be the officer that stopped you, who has by this time probably heard every excuse under the sun.

the whole aim is to reduce the chances of spreading the virus - to others, and between areas, which wont work if everyone decides to go for a day out on their boat, or to the beach, or .......

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

It may be but the word necessary has been used in all the published guidance, according to that you should avoid unnecessary travel, therefore it boils down to whether your journey is considered necessary, while you might try arguing the exact wording of the law if you are stopped, i am sure that you would then be seen to be unnecessarily obstructive, which wont do you any favours with a police officer who has stopped you.

I have a letter on company headed paper stating that i am a key utility worker in a company that serves over 4 million customers, that i could produce to explain why I am travelling if i get stopped. other than your interpretation of the regulations, what do you have to rely on if stopped?

While you are probably correct with your statement, and would be able to argue the fact if it went to court, the first person you need to convince would be the officer that stopped you, who has by this time probably heard every excuse under the sun.

the whole aim is to reduce the chances of spreading the virus - to others, and between areas, which wont work if everyone decides to go for a day out on their boat, or to the beach, or .......

and there you go again, peddling myths.

The guidance for the new lockdown for the 5th November says;

When we reduce our day-to-day contact with other people, we reduce the spread of the infection. That is why, from Thursday 5 November until Wednesday 2 December, you must:

Stay at home, except for specific purposes.

Avoid meeting people you do not live with, except for specific purposes.

Close certain businesses and venues.

1. Stay at home

You must not leave or be outside of your home except for specific purposes. A specific purpose includes:

The full advice is available here

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november

I have copied the entire contents of that page into a Word document and search for the word "necessary" and it appears 7 times. None of which are in relation to the context you have used it.

[grendel]

ok, so having checked the regulations i find this- 

Quote

Restrictions on leaving home 5.—(1) No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. 

extracted from - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/pdfs/uksi_20201200_en.pdf

so necessary or unnecessary was just the wording used in the preliminary announcement, - semantics again,

so if we replace all my necessarys and unnecessarys with 'without a reasonable excuse', you have to persuade the police officer that your excuse is reasonable, and then its down to them if they accept the fact or not, you are getting hung up on the actual wording, and not the intent of the laws / regulations, if the police officer decides your excuse is not reasonable, you are stuck with it.