Allowed on boat...

[Motor_Sailor]

[QUOTE="GlennG, post: 7109171, member: 13663" Listen to Lord Sumption . . . [/QUOTE]

Completely different point - you were moaning that we had all become risk averse and wanted to wrap ourselves in toilet roll. Now you're talking about poeple surrendering their civil liberties. He in his dotage is also confusing civil liberties with the demand for action.

At times of stress and fear, people quite naturally want to feel their safety and well being is protected. The nature of this 'safety net' is most effective in the short term, if people feel there is a plan, that it is workable, consistent, fair and proportional.

(You can read all sorts of stuff about a parallel situation with the provision of air raid shelters in the UK from the 30s through to the end of the cold war. Politicians constantly tried to balance the needs of physical protection, against cost, the sense that people thought 'enough was being done' and the danger of people being so cosy in their shelters that they wouldn't come out to work. It was a very nuanced and despite some glaring injustices, morale and productivity remained high).

Here, the government has not won over all the population: They have been seen to dither, to change plans, to have unworkable 'requirements' from the public, to be unclear amongst themselves what the 'rules' are, and not having a consistent enforcement regime from the Police.

Not only does that put the whole scheme on a dodgy footing, but risks an escalation in legal powers to try and shore up a badly established scheme. That's where the threat to civil liberties will come from.

So as a 'concerned member of the public' we have options: do we try to go with the spirit of the restrictions and make them work as they're the only game in town, or do we constantly undermine them and act as a right clever dick knowing full well it will simply increase the authoritarian nature of their implementation with then the real loss of civil liberties.

The plan at the moment is to 'buy time': Not just for the NHS, but also for the politicians and experts to come up with perhaps a better plan or at least an exit strategy. Without time all the smart arse arguments will count for nothing - things by then will be completely out of hand.

 

[cookijwm]

Here’s a thought......sailing is travelling. It’s not essential......so you cannot .

i see that the marinas are in fact closing now thankfully

 

[johnalison]

My village is behaving pretty well, as far as I can tell, though there was a chap out on the river in a kayak this afternoon. I have not heard of any problems in the area, so it all seems very remote, I imagine that many people feel this. However, I spoke to my 93-yr-old brother and his wife last night, in hertfordshire. There were downing a bottle of Champagne and were not fully ebriated and prone to giggle. The cause of their celebration was that it was 14 days since they had close contact with a friend who has since died of Covid19, and they considered themselve free. Another sister-in-law-in-law is currently seriously ill in hospital in Sussex but probably recovering, so I now have no illusions about the possibilty of it spreading.

 

[ChattingLil]

Oh be careful what you wish for. We are on board and wish we weren't. We've got stuck between house moves. Moved out of last house and expected 4-6 weeks for new house to complete - so everything went into storage and we decided to wait it out on board. Should have completed tomorrow but that's not happening so we're stuck here until who knows when. To ccompound matters.... this boat is also under offer and the buyers wanted to be on board by Easter so we've already moved lots of our luxuries off - spare sheets, games, books, etc.

I wish I was at 'home' with home luxuries and space to swing the cat in. Although this boat is comfy and we lived aboard for years it's very different when you can't sail it, or have anywhere to go and nothibg to do AND there's two of us trying to hold down jobs too!

Stay home and be grateful for your health and that soon enough you'll get on board at your leisure.

 

[Dee Bee]

For what its worth, I think the legal position on travelling has been cleared up. If you listened to the former Lord Chief Justice on the radio, the police have no legal powers to prevent you travelling for leisure. Compulsory powers were not included in the emergency legislation though the government advice on travel is clear. As the LCJ says, the police enforcing ministers' wishes rather than democratically passed legislation pretty much defines a police state. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating ignoring the government's advice on excessive travel.

 

[Dee Bee]

[QUOTE="GlennG, post: 7109171, member: 13663" Listen to Lord Sumption . . .

Completely different point - you were moaning that we had all become risk averse and wanted to wrap ourselves in toilet roll. Now you're talking about poeple surrendering their civil liberties. He in his dotage is also confusing civil liberties with the demand for action.

At times of stress and fear, people quite naturally want to feel their safety and well being is protected. The nature of this 'safety net' is most effective in the short term, if people feel there is a plan, that it is workable, consistent, fair and proportional.

(You can read all sorts of stuff about a parallel situation with the provision of air raid shelters in the UK from the 30s through to the end of the cold war. Politicians constantly tried to balance the needs of physical protection, against cost, the sense that people thought 'enough was being done' and the danger of people being so cosy in their shelters that they wouldn't come out to work. It was a very nuanced and despite some glaring injustices, morale and productivity remained high).

Here, the government has not won over all the population: They have been seen to dither, to change plans, to have unworkable 'requirements' from the public, to be unclear amongst themselves what the 'rules' are, and not having a consistent enforcement regime from the Police.

Not only does that put the whole scheme on a dodgy footing, but risks an escalation in legal powers to try and shore up a badly established scheme. That's where the threat to civil liberties will come from.

So as a 'concerned member of the public' we have options: do we try to go with the spirit of the restrictions and make them work as they're the only game in town, or do we constantly undermine them and act as a right clever dick knowing full well it will simply increase the authoritarian nature of their implementation with then the real loss of civil liberties.

The plan at the moment is to 'buy time': Not just for the NHS, but also for the politicians and experts to come up with perhaps a better plan or at least an exit strategy. Without time all the smart arse arguments will count for nothing - things by then will be completely out of hand.
[/QUOTE]
"He, in his dotage is also confusing civil liberties with the demand for action" If you listened to the man you would have heard an extremely intelligent ,rational and well argued position. I wish you his intelligence in your dotage. His point was not that action should not be taken but that action should not be arbitrary but in accordance with the law. What is wrong with that? Personally, I disagreed with what he was saying about the overall reaction to the crisis but it was equally rationally argued.

 

[GlennG]

What's the thing they can fine you for - mixing with others?

 

[WF36]

Someone enjoying a nice sail on the Orwell today as I note as I drove along the strand earlier.

 

[Bigplumbs]

What People should be doing is quite simple...… Stay at home...….. Unless your boat is your home or it is at your home you should stay away from it...… Could not be more simple.

Trying to find ways round this is putting peoples lives at risk. Is Irresponsible and selfish in my view

 

[saltyrob]

Really just out of curiosity /interest ,what would be likely insurance position in the event of an issue.

 

[Old Harry]

Really just out of curiosity /interest ,what would be likely insurance position in the event of an issue.

They are covering you

 

[Motor_Sailor]

. . . If you listened to the man you would have heard an extremely intelligent ,rational and well argued position . . .

Rubbish, if he was so bright he would not have picked the wrong fight, with the wrong people at the wrong time.

The source of all the confusion about what people can and can't do, should be firmly laid at the feet of the Government. They are the ones that should provide clear, legal instructions for everything they say must happen. They should then make sure everyone (including the Police) understand what is needed and the consequences for not following the plan in all its detail.

But instead of clear, unequivocal leadership from the government, we have nothing but vagueness and contradiction. Today their contribution to clearing up the confusion is to ask the Police to be 'consistent' in their handling of the situation: Lancashire has handed out over 100 enforcement notices for non-essential journeys whilst Bedfordshire has given out none. So who's approach should become the consistant one nationwide? Dominic Raab says the Police are doing 'a good job'. Which ones?

So Lord Sumption's attack was on the symptom of the problem not the cause. The Police are obviously caught between a rock and a hard place in this - they clearly have no more idea what the Government really wants that everyone else. But to pick on the use of a drone to suggest the coming of a police state is disproportional in the extreme. There's lots of reasons to think that has been happening, but in this instance, this is simply the Police trying to safe lives.

But the most serious consequence of this stupid man, is despite lecturing the Police about being 'citizens in uniform working by consent', he has completely undermined their ability to do so. Now every scote and bar room lawyer is going to say "you can't tell me I can't drive up here to walk my dog, because Lord High Sumption says it's my human rights".

He should be taken back to the care home and have Matron double his medication.

 

[Dee Bee]

There is no reason to be abusive. You may not agreee with him but that does not make him stupid or senile. Sumption is not some lefty lawyer but built his practice largely representing the government and was widely considered to be the smartest of all the judges. Now you may disagree with him but you should not do the classic internet thing of playing the man not the argument. You have not put forward any arguments as to why his assertion that the police should not behave as if ministers' wishes had the force of law is incorrect. You actually agree with him in your response.

 

[Triassic]

Seems to me that's a lot of argument on here about what you can and cannot do from a legal perspective. Rather than listen to various other peoples opinion about the rules why not have a look at them first hand and decide for yourself. Below is a link to a pretty reliable source that contains not just copies of the actual legislation but also their guidance to the very police that have to apply it.

Home

 

[Dan Tribe]

y
There was a yacht, I won’t name, went from Burnham to Ramsgate today, perhaps urgent or emergency passage, but perhaps just a jolly?

I think that that is the same boat which is now reported on Scuttlebutt as being anchored at East Head. Possibly on a delivery trip.

 

[Elemental]

Shotley is still operating...

SHIPS BLOG 30/3/20 CORONA-VIRUS UPDATE - Shotley Marina Ltd

 

[GlennG]

@Motor_Sailor -- are you promoting a one-size-fits-all solution where, in just a few words, HMG can dictate our lives (without recourse to properly scruitinsed law)? I suppose they could base it on the operations manual of HMP Slade.

Or are HMG better off giving higher level guidance to most with strict rules for others? For example us sailors know what social distancing is about -- we generally being old farts with few friends and a modicum of self discipline -- where we could quite easily get on with a ton of jobs on the boat without affecting anyone; even going sailing (with our own household of course). For those that live in the city cesspits control may need to be more prescriptive simply because there's so many of them and a higher proportion of feral yoofs to spread the plague.


BTW Lord Sumption's interview is transcribed here: Former Supreme Court Justice: 'This is what a police state is like' | The Spectator

 

[Triassic]

GlennG, what you have described is pretty much the ethos of traditional policing in this country, allowing people to get on with their lives providing it does not endanger or disadvantage another. Unfortunately policing has been subject to significant change over recent years, mostly in direct response to demands from the public that they be more accountable and subject to local control. The introduction of the PCC (Police and Crime Commissioner) meant that chief constables were hired and fired by a locally appointed politician so they immediately answered to them and carried out their bidding. The police suddenly became a tool to be used for political advantage, all in the name of giving the people what they wanted. Motor Sailor is a typical example of someone who knows what they want, demands it be done a certain way, but has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the mechanism behind it.

 

[Motor_Sailor]

If you listened to the man you would have heard an extremely intelligent ,rational and well argued position. I wish you his intelligence in your dotage.

Well thank you. But I can't quite agree that his input at this time, in this manner, shows he has much grip on reality.

Dymond: There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say 'well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control'. What do you say to them?

Sumption: What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.

That all might be true amongst his circle of friends, but nationwide? Really? There's pleanty of people on these forums who prove day after day that they are not able to do what he thinks is in the remit of 'every citizen'.

And to Triassic I'd say, I'm not prescribing what needs to be done in any shape or form, except I believe that it's reasonable expection of our government that they should take timely steps to safeguard the security of the coutry and its citizens. That pretty much is their job description. Ours has been shown to be lacking and in the wishy washy response they have produced, the police have been placed between a rock and a hard place.

Further more it would help if those who know they have a high public profile like Lord Sumption, are a bit more critical in their analysis of where the shortcomings and real threats might lay. Otherwise it would be tempting to think that someone who has been a strong ally of the establishment in his career might be still acting in their service and using his interjection to divert the critical gaze from the Cabinet who are struggling to find even one person to front their briefing sessions in a way that instils an iota of confidence.

 

[Marmalade]

An interesting civil liberties debate... Personally I've always preferred to understand why I'm being asked / told to do (or not do) something. I do take a little umbrage at the argument repeated here in many posts that goes something along the lines of...

"what is it you don't understand about the instruction to stay at home?"

...impying that because I don't agree with someone I must be suffering from a lack of understanding or intelligence. I believe that I can intelligently debate a point and even disagree with something and that lack of understanding is rarely the issue.

I'm still at home and not sailing - that doesn't stop me questioning the blanket, one-size-fits-all nature of the instruction. I thought Lord Sumption's contribution was apt and thought provoking by the way.