• REMINDER - COVID-19

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as YBW, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health and liberty is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

    Users who are found to promulgate FAKE NEWS on the forum in regard to this issue, intentional or otherwise, may find their access terminated. It is your responsibility to provide references to bona fide sources.

    FAKE NEWS, in this regard, is that which is posited by organisations, media, etc., that is repeated on the forum, or used to support personal opinion/hypothesis posted by users - FAKE NEWS is not necessarily the personal opinion/hypothesis being posted in itself, any issues with such should be challenged respectfully.

Anchoring -blind eye?

bedouin

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
27,580
As far as I know there is no published guidance permitting staying on board boats, or caravans, or tents. these are not mentioned in guidance I've seen. In fact it still requires us to minimise time spent away from home, with work, medical issues and exercise as specific exceptions. It specifically prevents us staying in other homes and holiday homes.
More below.

But as a favour to me, could you show me the part of the guidance or regulations that makes you think that we can't stay in holiday homes, and must minimise time outside the home, but can stay in boats, caravans, tents etc?
Caravan sites and so on are explicitly required to remain closed in the regulations so those have to stay closed.

The regulations do no require us to minimise the time spent away from home - on the contrary the advice associated with the latest revision says you can spend as much time as you like, and travel as far as you like, to pursue your outdoor pursuits.

I can't show you where the regulations permit anything mainly because in UK law everything is lawful unless it is explicitly declared unlawful. Going to a boat is well understood to be an acceptable under 6(b) and nothing restricts the amount of time you can spend on that recreation. It is universally acknowledged that night fishing is allowed so there is no doubt that sailing overnight is also permitted.

Whether staying on the boat overnight without sailing is allowed is a slightly gray area but there is nothing in the regulation that could be used to say that and nothing in the latest round of advice that implies it.

Note that the regulations don't explicitly forbid staying overnight in holiday homes (other than caravans that are prohibited) so if you could argue that you had a good reason for being at your home (perhaps to take exercise in the grounds) then you could argue it was reasonable. However that would be hard to do given the advice (not regulations) says one should not.

As far as the inland waterways are concerned the advice from the Canal and Riverboat trust is that staying on your boat on your home moorings is allowed

But let's not forget the ONLY reason for the regulations is to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. If you think anchoring is more likely to spread the virus than driving home then it is your moral duty not to do so even if it is lawful. If you don't then you should feel free to do anything not explicitly banned.
 

Little Grebe

Well-known member
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Messages
6,525
Location
From the Needles to the Nab, from Cowes to St Cath
Caravan sites and so on are explicitly required to remain closed in the regulations so those have to stay closed.

The regulations do no require us to minimise the time spent away from home - on the contrary the advice associated with the latest revision says you can spend as much time as you like, and travel as far as you like, to pursue your outdoor pursuits.

I can't show you where the regulations permit anything mainly because in UK law everything is lawful unless it is explicitly declared unlawful. Going to a boat is well understood to be an acceptable under 6(b) and nothing restricts the amount of time you can spend on that recreation. It is universally acknowledged that night fishing is allowed so there is no doubt that sailing overnight is also permitted.

Whether staying on the boat overnight without sailing is allowed is a slightly gray area but there is nothing in the regulation that could be used to say that and nothing in the latest round of advice that implies it.

Note that the regulations don't explicitly forbid staying overnight in holiday homes (other than caravans that are prohibited) so if you could argue that you had a good reason for being at your home (perhaps to take exercise in the grounds) then you could argue it was reasonable. However that would be hard to do given the advice (not regulations) says one should not.

As far as the inland waterways are concerned the advice from the Canal and Riverboat trust is that staying on your boat on your home moorings is allowed

But let's not forget the ONLY reason for the regulations is to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. If you think anchoring is more likely to spread the virus than driving home then it is your moral duty not to do so even if it is lawful. If you don't then you should feel free to do anything not explicitly banned.
Agreed, although oddly the latest HM Government advert which keeps cropping up during my TV catch up gives slightly different message;

This means you must:

1) stay at home as much as possible
2) work from home if you can
3) limit contact with other people
4) keep your distance if you go out (2 metres apart where....
 

bedouin

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
27,580
Agreed, although oddly the latest HM Government advert which keeps cropping up during my TV catch up gives slightly different message;
The "stay at home as much as you can bit" is clearly wrong and is at odds both with the regulations and with other sections of government advice that we can go out as often as we like and stay out as long as we like. They have even dropped the "stay home" bit from the Lectern at the downing street briefings
 

chriss999

Well-known member
Joined
9 Oct 2012
Messages
3,908
Location
Devon, England
The message is very blurred if government promotes a course of action and then frames the regulations to permit a different course of action.
Does this mean that we should ignore the regulations or ignore the government communications?
Or pick and choose between them?
 

bedouin

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
27,580
The message is very blurred if government promotes a course of action and then frames the regulations to permit a different course of action.
Does this mean that we should ignore the regulations or ignore the government communications?
Or pick and choose between them?
We have to obey the regulations - that is the law.

We should take notice of advice and follow it if appropriate.

Don't forget the objective is to control the spread of the virus. IMHO anything lawful that does not risk spreading the virus is fine.
 

bedouin

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
27,580
The problem is that some of the advice promulgated through official sources ,like the above TV advert and much of the FAQs, could be considered misleading.
They certainly make no effort to distinguish between the regulations and the advice which clearly leads many people to think things are prohibited when they aren't.

Of course it is much easier to give simple advice "Stay At Home" than the detailed regulations with all the exceptions to the advice
 

chriss999

Well-known member
Joined
9 Oct 2012
Messages
3,908
Location
Devon, England
They certainly make no effort to distinguish between the regulations and the advice which clearly leads many people to think things are prohibited when they aren't.

Of course it is much easier to give simple advice "Stay At Home" than the detailed regulations with all the exceptions to the advice
On your final point. The Cummings case shows what a dogs dinner the government made of promulgating a simple message, so goodness knows what will happen when the message is complex.

IMHO this is the very reason that the regulations MUST match the official government message.
Btw I will continue to follow the official message NOT the regulations & let the barrack room lawyers find their own loopholes.
 

bedouin

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
27,580
On your final point. The Cummings case shows what a dogs dinner the government made of promulgating a simple message, so goodness knows what will happen when the message is complex.

IMHO this is the very reason that the regulations MUST match the official government message.
Btw I will continue to follow the official message NOT the regulations & let the barrack room lawyers find their own loopholes.
There is a major difference. The regulations are LAW. The primary legislation had to get through Parliament and is subject to UK constitution, courts etc. The government advice has no such checks, and often seems to be issued by some mid level civil servant with only a passing familiarity with the rules.

You are of course welcome to make your own judgments on your own actions but when you start describing people who stick to the letter and spirit of the LAW "barrack room lawyers" you become one of the Nazis all too common on here who want to restrict everyone else's actions while more often than not turning a blind eye to their own or their friends breaking the rules they want others to adhere to.

You cannot both condemn Cummings and excuse Kinnock and Blackford without being a hypocrite
 

chriss999

Well-known member
Joined
9 Oct 2012
Messages
3,908
Location
Devon, England
There is a major difference. The regulations are LAW. The primary legislation had to get through Parliament and is subject to UK constitution, courts etc. The government advice has no such checks, and often seems to be issued by some mid level civil servant with only a passing familiarity with the rules.

You are of course welcome to make your own judgments on your own actions but when you start describing people who stick to the letter and spirit of the LAW "barrack room lawyers" you become one of the Nazis all too common on here who want to restrict everyone else's actions while more often than not turning a blind eye to their own or their friends breaking the rules they want others to adhere to.

You cannot both condemn Cummings and excuse Kinnock and Blackford without being a hypocrite
Since you are keen to bring politics into it. I do condemn the earlier actions of Kinnock and Jenrick & both should apologise & make it clear that they were in the wrong in breaking the lockdown. Cummings ditto, though his breaches appear more serious as he did his excursions whilst infected with the virus. That distinguishes his conduct from the other two. (And why did his wife write her fictional article on the subject if not as a cover-up?)
Blackford I don’t know about so can’t comment.
It does not make me a nazi if I am keen to follow public safety guidelines from the government. I would also like others to do the same.

I am suspicious that the government seems incapable of backing its guidelines up with the force of law. They should be the same and there should be no wriggle-room for the chisellers who look for private advantage from loopholes.
Or if you prefer, the guidelines should clearly set out the law so it is clear that we can all benefit from it, not just the lawyers.
In my professional life I do occasionally examine regulations to see what opportunities they provide, ie look for loopholes in the law. And great fun it is too.

But I hope that you would agree with me it is tragic that in the midst of this deadly crisis there should be such a miss-match between what the law says and what the government says that the law says. This is a recipe for confusion and it brings terrible risks that people will not take it seriously, and people will die as a result.
 

bedouin

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
27,580
Since you are keen to bring politics into it. I do condemn the earlier actions of Kinnock and Jenrick & both should apologise & make it clear that they were in the wrong in breaking the lockdown. Cummings ditto, though his breaches appear more serious as he did his excursions whilst infected with the virus. That distinguishes his conduct from the other two. (And why did his wife write her fictional article on the subject if not as a cover-up?)
Blackford I don’t know about so can’t comment.
It does not make me a nazi if I am keen to follow public safety guidelines from the government. I would also like others to do the same.

I am suspicious that the government seems incapable of backing its guidelines up with the force of law. They should be the same and there should be no wriggle-room for the chisellers who look for private advantage from loopholes.
Or if you prefer, the guidelines should clearly set out the law so it is clear that we can all benefit from it, not just the lawyers.
In my professional life I do occasionally examine regulations to see what opportunities they provide, ie look for loopholes in the law. And great fun it is too.

But I hope that you would agree with me it is tragic that in the midst of this deadly crisis there should be such a miss-match between what the law says and what the government says that the law says. This is a recipe for confusion and it brings terrible risks that people will not take it seriously, and people will die as a result.
I am not accusing you of being political in that respect but many on the Forum clearly are.

The Durham police have concluded (reportedly) that the trip to Durham was fine and that the subsequent trip to Barnard's castle might have been a minor breach. Nothing like Kinnock / Jenrick etc. I don't remember you (or anyone else for that matter) condemning them - I must look back and find the thread(s). Many MPs somehow managed to disappear from their London homes and turn up a long way away while under lock down

The government IS incapable of backing its guidelines with law because in UK the government is not all-powerful. We have a set of checks and balances to what the government can do. The primary legislation is very reasonable. The SIs aren't too bad but probably could be challenged in the courts - so don't expect any criminal prosecution based on them.

Much of the advice however is coming from people who are trying to impose much more stringent guideslines than the law allows or the government intended. There have been numerous instances of the government criticising Police/LAs etc for going way beyond what they intended.

The law has to be complex as it needs to cover every conceivable circumstance that could arise to 66m people in a 2 month lockdown. Guidelines can be much simpler as they only have to apply in the majority of circumstances.
 

arto

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2004
Messages
150
Location
London
Indeed. There's a whole section about elite athletes (and their coaches) which is presumably to allow sports people to train and then entertain us, professional football being the opiate of the people. Or something like that.
 

oldharry

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
9,073
Location
North from the Nab about 10 miles

LONG_KEELER

Well-known member
Joined
21 Jul 2009
Messages
2,243
Location
East Coast
Indeed. There's a whole section about elite athletes (and their coaches) which is presumably to allow sports people to train and then entertain us, professional football being the opiate of the people. Or something like that.
I'm in full training for the elite Luffit and Backit autumn rose bowl handicap for the over 70's so every sail I have until then counts.
 
Top