Access to Marinas during Covid 19 restrictions

[jordanbasset]

I have now given this matter some more consideration.

i understand that many marinas have closed in order to limit numbers of people attending and rely on their having taken the decision that they are the same as "caravan parks"....

This is the reality and if marinas are interpreting the law as they think appropriate then at the very least they should be in consultation with the Governement since the Governemnt has not seen fit to mention marinas - or airports for that matter - and I refer to all the owners of GA aircraft who face similar concerns (albeit possibly less severe in the short term), and the majority of who have not been locked out of the airports at which they are based.

I have written to the RYA.

On the highlighted part marinas have been in consultation with the Government, this is the advice
https://britishmarine.co.uk/-/media...British-Marine-Members-26th-March-2020-V2.pdf
'Question: Should we shut our marinas to leisure berth holders? Answer: We have asked the UK Government and their response was that marinas should be treated the same way as caravan parks which have been directed to close. Recognising that marinas include other services and operations we have put together a flow diagram on the following page to help you'

The whole document makes interesting reading

 

[Praxinoscope]

Our local council which 'maintains' our harbour has sent out the initial paperwork for registration of our moorings, but then they closed down and left a rather obs ure message which suggest they will charge us but they won't yet as there is no one at work.
Our boats are currently covering 80% of the council South Beach car park, but of course with the movement restrictions they are better off charging us for storage than relying upon parking fees.

 

[Trident]

Bluntly the biggest problem is that most people have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to the suffering of others. The adage hat the good of the many outweighs the good of the few has always been followed and of course is morally the basis of taxation etc that supports a health service. The good of thefew, the very elderly and those at high risk, is currently outweighing the good of the many - those who will get a slight sore throat or not even notice. The many will face economic collapse (and its not "only money" its food, health, infrastructure in the future) and so face much greater harm such as (ultimately if we see 1930s depression) starvation but certainly mental health issues, suicide, alcoholism, abuse etc etc. It is an inescapable fact that a long term lockdown will cause more harm than simply letting the virus run its course and kill a tiny percentage of the population. Most of that tiny percentage will be those who are of little benefit to the rest of society in real terms.

However, we do not like seeing old ladies die and its hard to justify the suffering now of individuals against imagined (or predicted) suffering of an amorphous mass of people in the future, even if that is a near future. So the question in leadership now is do we want high emotional intelligence that responds to what people want for emotional reasons (which is an evolutionary imperative that was important right up until we invented written transmission of knowledge from the old to the young) or a colder harder intelligence that wants to have the best for the most people long term. Both views seem very prevalent on this forum, though the needs of the many crowd shy away from being too blunt because the needs of the few team start throwing around insults (or in my case someone started a thread called "name and shame forum members who are happy to see people die" for just discussing the varying options)

We do have to have a future and that means we need a functioning country at the end of this and whilst in the terms of this thread I don't see how a visit to the boat yard will contribute to a functioning country but some hard questions about saving lives of the elderly and infirm to the detriment of the young need to be asked and ultimately it makes no sense for the future of our race (the human one not the UK etc)

 

[Praxinoscope]

This is the information concerning the three harbours Aberystwyth (not the Aberystwyth Marina) Aberaeron and Newquay from the council that manages these three harbours.

Update on Mooring Fees. As you are aware Mooring application forms have recently been issued to existing mooring holders at Ceredigion County Council harbours. Mooring holders are asked to complete and return the application forms in the usual way. However, no invoices will be raised until the COVID-19 situation becomes clearer and a review undertaken. Mooring holders will be advised of the approach being adopted moving forward prior to any action being taken. We thank all our customers for their understanding and support at this time. Due to other priorities at this time and as this matter has essentially now been placed on hold, the Council will not be communicating further with regards to it at this time. Yours Sincerely. Gwyn Jones. Corporate Manager - Environmental Services

 

[Deleted member 36384]

...... the good of the many outweighs the good of the few....

It's not an adage, it's a quote from a Star Trek film, said by the character Dr Spock. Communism and Noah prove the futility of the "adage". (-;

 

[Lightwave395]

This is not happening. In my own case despite reassurances from the marina, the boat has suffered considerable damage. This might have occurred anyway, but the relatviely simple work to make it safe and secure was inadequately performed.

However long this debate continues, I do hope you manage to sort your boat out - was it on a pontoon ? did it break free ? It's easy for me to say it's only a boat when mine is worth probably 10% or less of yours....

 

[BabySharkDooDooDooDooDoo]

It's not an adage, it's a quote from a Star Trek film, said by the character Dr Spock. Communism and Noah prove the futility of the "adage". (-;

I think that was Mr Spock as Dr Spock was a child psychologist

 

[ip485]

. . .. .. and the morning is greeeted with the latest news from Scotland.

The chief medical officer has just been photographed visiting her holiday cottage, a round trip of over one hundred miles.

She said I just needed to check up on things, as I wont be able to visit again for a while. Presumably this is the current expert advice?

So that is official then.

Excuse number 64.2 - I needed to check up on things. Oh no, silly me, reasonable ground number 64.2.

 

[JumbleDuck]

How about making all future posts to this thread dependent upon the contributors using actual names rather than pseudonyms?

Ian Robinson

Because ... ?

Zaphod Beeblebrox

 

[doug748]

. . .. .. and the morning is greeeted with the latest news from Scotland.

The chief medical officer has just been photographed visiting her holiday cottage, a round trip of over one hundred miles.

She said I just needed to check up on things, as I wont be able to visit again for a while. Presumably that is the expert advice?

So that is official then.

Excuse number 64.2 - I needed to check up on things. Oh no, silly me, reasonable ground number 64.2.

Calderwood is well out of her depth.

Couple of days ago she was telling the Scots that the lockdown could last 3 or even six months. The last thing that needs to be said publicly at a stage when you are trying to unite people in an national effort.

How did she imagine she would get away with this one? Brainless.

.

.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

I think that was Mr Spock as Dr Spock was a child psychologist

Stupid me, they don't have Doctorates on Vulcan. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Bru]

And the latest word from Health Secretary Matt Hancock, according to the news this morning, is that he is considering banning leaving the home for excercise because people are not following the guidelines

 

[doug748]

And the latest word from Health Secretary Matt Hancock, according to the news this morning, is that he is considering banning leaving the home for excercise because people are not following the guidelines

Daft threat that would do more infinitely more harm than good. I see the new Labour bloke is supporting him. God help us.

 

[FlyingGoose]

[QUOTE="Bru, post: 7118505, member: 23489
And the latest word from Health Secretary Matt Hancock, according to the news this morning, is that he is considering banning leaving the home for excercise because people are not following the guidelines
[/QUOTE]

And how do you think they can achieve this without parliament sitting, yes they can use emergency powers , it would be very brave or stupid Government to go down that route, as It will end up in court
You really need to understand that flippant comments by a health minister are all they are , they are they to scare and threaten the public but have no law behind it , he is starting to become an irritant with all this rubbish coming out of his mouth , no sun bathing,(no law) driving is fine, next day no its not only if close by (no law), Gove 30 mins exercise is fine , (no law ) only once can you go ut , (law does not state how many times only in Wales)

People really need to wake up and smell the coffee GOVERNMENT MINISTERS do not make law every time they open their mouths
And to all the haters of the Goose, I stand up for civil liberties and disabled liberties I am an active protester for these and will never stop , to allow all of our country to have the freedoms we deserve, Also I have been isolated for 25 days now apart form 6 days out of that that I could mange to take my Dogs out , so this is not about me me me its about all of you you you and your freedoms .
When this is all over expect some of these draconian laws to linger like a bad smell with council and police exploiting them to their will, hence the bill is for 2 years think about it remember the anti terrorist laws that came in , and some councils used it to film their tenants do not think it will not get worse

 

[cherod]

goose ,, that is indeed a worry , how many of these emergencies will remain ? i suppose there are those who will support maintaining many of them

 

[Old Harry]

We need a coordinated plan but some of the daft suggestions here illustrate that it’s not us that should be coming up with the plan.

We have a simple plan now, it has to be simple to work but that still doesn’t stop scores of posts about how people can interpret or amend the plan so then can do things to suit themselves without thinking through the consequences.

Let the experts come up with the plans and then do your bit to implement them.

Thats the best way to minimise the deaths.

______________________

This is taken from legislation.gov.uk, and as we can see there is a long list of reasons why people might be out and about, but the one that interests me is (f) I drive around carrying out support for the community and I see window cleaners, scaffolders, builders, grass cutting teams, lorry delivering cars et etc. None of this can be done from home so according to the legislation it is fine to go out and do. Maybe not needed, but never the less not unlawful.

Pest control is work (no mention of it being paid work) or maybe a voluntary service that cannot be done from home. It is also necessary for the protection of crops, livestock to ensure food production etc. To my mind, more so than cleaning glass or putting up scaffold.

So I think Pest Control is a lawful activity, but morally, that is another matter...





6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member, or

(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.

(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

 

[Graham376]

I stand up for civil liberties and disabled liberties I am an active protester for these and will never stop , to allow all of our country to have the freedoms we deserve, Also I have been isolated for 25 days now apart form 6 days out of that that I could mange to take my Dogs out , so this is not about me me me its about all of you you you and your freedoms.

Problem is Goose, some people don't deserve the freedoms at the moment, they totally ignore the guidelines and put the rest of us at risk. Government is in a difficult position in having to have blanket rules which have an adverse effect on the sensible because of actions of the irresponsible.

The sun bathing argument is a typical example, if a green area or a beach is within normal walking/exercise distance from home then I see no harm in sitting on the grass/sand well spaced out for a short while. OTOH, if people drive from towns miles around, bringing butties with them, use the toilet facilities and mix with others, then that's a problem. We know some are attempting to do just that so, the result is a ban for all.

Government are criticised by some if they get tough and by others if they don't. My guess is they're doing their best under unprecedented circumstances and they're just a bunch of people like us who have to rely on the experts for guidance and how many varying views from them as well?

 

[Bru]

You really need to understand that flippant comments by a health minister are all they are , they are they to scare and threaten the public but have no law behind it , he is starting to become an irritant with all this rubbish coming out of his mouth get worse

You really need to understand that we are in thr midst of a global pandemic and a national emergency that could make the 1918/19 flu pandemic look like a stroll in the park

Hancock is not being flippant, he is, i would feel from his tone and body language, getting increasingly frustrated by a minority who are flouting the guidance and putting themselves and others at risk

And whilst you may be arguing your case theoretically, picking loopholes apart for fun on a forum, there are far too many people who are doing so in the real world

Your pedantic obsession with nit picking details totally misses the point - the guidance is fundamentally simple and easy to understand if you choose to understand it. It is to stay at home unless you HAVE to go out

Due to people ignoring this and extracting the urine, it looks increasingly inevitable that thr government will clamp down harder, possibly tomorrow. Judging by the general mood on social media etc , they will have the support of the vast majority of the people who will blame the people who won't play nice rather than the government

If we continue down the current path, the guidance will be turned into law. They made, frankly, a mistake with the existing Order in trying to be too flexible and reasonable (putting, apart from anything else, the police in a virtually impossible position).

People having barbecues on Brighton beach, driving 100 odd miles to go fit a rambke in the Lake District etc etc etc are CLEARLY activities that are NOT in the spirit of the guidance. Given how difficult inevitably is to be flexible if people persist in not being reasonable, the only options appear to be to either abandon the "lockdown" strategy or to remove the flexibility to close the loopholes.

 

[duncan99210]

There’s no need for Parliament to be recalled as the lock down powers are all contained in a Statutory Instrument (SI) (that you can see here The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020) which can be amended by ministers if they so choose to do so. The power to do this was included in the Emergency Powers act. Don’t forget that the current government has a large majority so the chances of any changes actually being kicked out, if Parliament were recalled, are vanishingly small.

 

[Momac]

Most of that tiny percentage will be those who are of little benefit to the rest of society in real terms.

Do you place yourself in the category to which you refer ?